CpG30 
T2.3C 


■  YkV." 


Economic  and  social  conditions  of 
North  Carolina  farmers 

Taylor  and  Zimmerman 


•^ 


C6e  Hibrarp 

of  the 

(tlnftjergitp  of  J!3ort&  Carolina 


Collection  of  iRortD  Carolinians 

©n&otoeti  bg 

lofin  feprunt  MI 

of  tbe  oriasje  of  1889 


Cpb'so 


»»!Kffi:.N-C-AT  CHAPEL 


00017479211 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped 
below  unless  recalled  sooner.    It  may  be 
renewed  only  once  and  must  be  brought  to 
the  North  Carolina  Collection  for  renewal. 


|tf?i»S 


ECONOMIC  and  SOCIAL 

CONDITIONS  of  NORTH 

CAROLINA  FARMERS 


BASED  ON  A  SURVEY  OF 

1000  NORTH  CAROLINA  FARMERS 

IN  THREE  TYPICAL  COUNTIES 

OF  THE  STATE 


Prepared  Under  the  Direction  of  a  Committee  Appointed  by 

the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  Consisting 

of  Representatives  from 

THE  NORTH    CAROLINA   COLLEGE  FOR  WOMEN 

THE  NORTH   CAROLINA  STATE  COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AND  ENGINEERING 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  NORTH    CAROLINA 

AND 

THE  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE 

IN   CO-OPERATION  WITH 

THE  U.  S.  BUREAU  OF  AGRICULTURAL  ECONOMICS 


Information  Compiled  and  Collated 
by 

CARL  C.  TAYLOR 
C.  C.  ZIMMERMAN 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

The  Area  Surveyed:    The  People 8 

The  Laud  Farmed 9 

Farm  Crop  Practices 11 

Livestock  Practices  15 

Family  Food  Supplies 17 

Milk  and  Butter 19-20 

Pork  and  Lard 20-21 

Eggs  and  Poultry 22-23 

Flour,  Potatoes,  Meal,  and  Molasses 23-25 

Garden  and  Orchard  Products 26 

Cash  Income  27 

Credit  i 28 

Wealth  and  Equity 32 

Tenure  History  35 

The  Homes  :    Houses 39 

Home  Conveniences  43 

Health  and  Sanitation...... 50 

Contacts  with  Doctors 51-52 

Expenditures  for  Drugs  and  Doctor  Bills 53-54 

Attendance  at  Births 55-5S 

Water  Supply 59-62 

Disposal  of  Waste  and  Garbage 63-64 

Education   64 

Papers  and  Magazines  Taken 67-71 

Books    72-73 

Religion    T4 

Recreation   ^6 

Change  of  Residence S2 

Per  Cent  Have  Autos,  Buggies,  etc 83-84 

Exchange  of  Work 84 

Opinions  on  Community  Problems 86-87 


PREFACE 

This  bulletin  grew  out  of  a  resolution  passed  by  the  State  Board  of 
Agriculture  at  its  annual  meeting  in  December,  1921,  as  follows : 

"Whereas,  the  alarming  increase  in  tenancy  presents  one  of  the  most 
serious  problems  now  confronting  the  farmers  of  our  State  and  other 
States.  In  1880  only  one  American  farmer  in  four  was  a  tenant, 
whereas  now  practically  two  out  of  five  are  tenants,  and  the  percentage 
is  higher  in  North  Carolina  than  in  the  country  as  a  whole.  Our  public 
men  as  well  as  our  agricultural  leaders  are  now  becoming  aroused  to 
the  seriousness  of  this  evil,  and  there  is  general  demand  for  a  thorough 
investigation  of  the  whole  problem,  with  a  view  to  discovering  precise 
facts  and  suggesting  definite  remedies :  Therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved  by  the  North  Carolina  Board  of  Agriculture,  That  we 
hereby  request  four  men  in  North  Carolina  who  have  given  prolonged 
study  to  the  question  of  tenancy  and  land  ownership  in  this  State  and 
other  States,  and  in  foreign  countries — namely,  Mr.  B.  E.  Brown,  Direc- 
tor of  our  Division  of  Markets  and  Rural  Organization;  Dr.  Carl  C. 
Taylor,  Head  of  the  Division  of  Rural  Economics,  State  College  of 
Agriculture  and  Engineering;  Professor  E.  C.  Branson,  Department 
of  Rural  Economics  of  our  State  University,  and  Dr.  E.  C.  Lindeman, 
of  a  similar  department  of  our  State  College  for  Women — together  with 
two  representatives  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  to  come  together  and 
make  plans  for  a  thorough-going  study  and  investigation  of  the  whole 
subject  of  farm  tenancy  and  proposed  remedies,  proceeding  immediately 
with  such  studies  and  investigations  as  they  are  themselves  prepared 
to  carry  out,  and  making  plans  for  the  cooperation  of  all  these  institu- 
tions in  prosecuting  such  additional  surveys  and  investigations  as  are 
deemed  necessary." 

The  committee  thus  appointed  consisted  at  first  of  the  above-named 
members,  with  Dr.  Clarence  Poe  and  Hon.  C.  C.  Wright  acting  for 
the  Board  of  Agriculture. 

At  a  later  date,  the  1ST.  C.  College  for  Women  was  represented  by 
Dr.  W.  C.  Jackson  in  the  absence  of  Dr.  Lindeman,  and  the  University 
by  Professor  S.  H.  Hobbs,  Jr.,  in  the  absence  of  Dr.  Branson. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  committee  in  Greensboro  in  March,  1922, 
it  was  agreed  that  the  four  institutions — the  North  Carolina  College 
for  Women,  the  State  University,  the  State  College  of  Agriculture  and 
Engineering,  and  the  State  Division  of  Markets — should  cooperate  and 
secure,  if  possible,  the  cooperation  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics.  These  arrangements  were  perfected,  the  survey  made,  and 
the  bulletin  written  under  them. 


4  North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 

The  schedules  were  the  joint  work  of  Dr.  Branson,  Dr.  Taylor,  C.  C. 
Zimmerman,  and  C.  O.  Brannen;  the  field  work  was  carried  on  by 
W.  R.  Anderson,  C.  H.  Warren  and  J.  A.  Dickey,  under  the  direction 
of  C.  C.  Zimmerman,  in  charge;  the  schedules  were  compiled  by  C.  C. 
Zimmerman,  A.  J.  Honeycutt  and  J.  A.  Dickey,  under  the  direction 
of  Dr.  Taylor;  and  the  bulletin  has  been  written  by  Dr.  Taylor  and 
C.  C.  Zimmerman,  under  the  general  supervision  of  the  whole  com- 
mittee. B.  F.  Brown,  Chairman, 

The  Tenancy  Commission. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  information  gathered  in  this  study  is  so  detailed  and  is  compiled 
in  such  tabular  form  that  it  demands  some  generalization  to  be  usable 
by  the  average  person.  For  that  reason  these  few  brief  statements  are 
made  by  way  of  introduction  and  as  a  suggestion  of  the  many  facts 
contained  in  the  tables,  if  the  reader  cares  to  study  them. 

Since  this  is  chiefly  a  study  of  the  causes  and  effects  of  tenancy,  it 
may  seem  that  only  the  darker  side  of  North  Carolina  rural  life  is  por- 
trayed in  these  statements  and  the  following  tables.  This  is  undoubtedly 
the  case,  but  tenancy  in  many  of  its  aspects  creates  a  dark  side  of  rural 
life.  These  conclusions,  we  believe,  are  justified  from  the  facts  as  we 
found  them,  and  are  about  the  same  as  any  one  will  draw  who  is  willing 
to  study  the  tahiilated  data  in  detail. 

Many  people  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  the  average  amount  of 
land  being  cultivated  is  less  than  eighteen  acres  per  family.  This  is  a 
small  acreage  upon  which  to  make  a  living  unless  the  most  intensive 
methods  of  cultivation  are  used  and  exactly  the  right  choice  of  crops 
is  guaranteed. 

That  a  wise  choice  of  production  is  not  being  practiced,  particularly 
for  a  long-time  agricultural  program,  is  indicated  by  the  very  great 
amount  of  exhaustive  crops  being  planted  in  contrast  to  the  very  few 
improvement  crops.  Furthermore,  it  is  clear  from  the  data  presented 
in  the  following  tables  that  tenant  farming  is  conducive  to  exhaustive 
crop  farming  more  than  owner-operator  farming.  The  tenants  and 
croppers  in  two  of  the  three  counties  surveyed  had  over  99  per  cent  of 
all  their  land  planted  to  crops  which  were  strictly  fertility-exhausting 
rather  than  soil-improving. 

The  tenants  and  croppers  are  almost  wholly  cotton  and  tobacco  grow- 
ers in  the  Piedmont  and  Coastal  Plain  counties.  The  landless  farmers 
universally  have  fewer  livestock  than  the  landowners  have.  They  pro- 
duce less  of  their  home  food  supply,  and  in  addition  to  this  they  have 
a  lower  cash  income.  They  thus  not  only  are  practicing  a  system  of 
agriculture  which  is  ruinous  for  the  future  but  are  not  making  even 
personal  gain  while  they  are  doing  it. 

The  crop  lien  is  the  curse  of  North  Carolina  agriculture.  The  land- 
lords and  owner-operators  are  by  no  means  universally  free  from  the 
crop  lien  and  chattel  mortgage,  but  the  landless  farmers  are  farming 
under  this  handicap  in  three  times  as  great  numbers  as  are  the  landed. 
Furthermore,  the  tenants  and  croppers  use  a  much  greater  per  cent 
of  their  credit  for  living  purposes  than  the  landlords  and  owners  do. 
Their  credit  is  not  so  much  for  the  sake  of  an  investment  as  it  is  for 
the  sake  of  a  stake  to  tide  them  over  from  season  to  season.  This  is  not 
a  business  use  of  eredit  but  a  makeshift  one  year  after  another. 


6  jNTorth   Carolina  Tenancy   Commission 

The  great  number  of  tenants  and  croppers  whose  fathers  were  tenants 
and  croppers  and  the  few  owners  who  rose  to  ownership  unaided  make 
it  clear  that  it  is  not  easy  to  attain  the  status  of  a  farm-owner  in  modern 
agriculture,  and  probably  indicates  that  our  numbers  of  tenants  will 
continue  to  increase  unless  some  means  is  discovered  with  which  to 
assist  them  to  the  ownership  of  farms. 

JSTo  matter  how  much  disagreement  there  may  be  among  persons  as 
to  the  cause  of  tenancy,  the  effects  are  too  clear  to  dispute.  This  is 
just  as  true  of  the  social  effects  as  it  is  of  the  economic  effects.  The 
landless  families  live  in  poorer  houses,  they  live  under  worse  sanitary 
conditions,  have  poorer  health,  lose  more  of  their  children  by  death 
than  the  owners  do.  They  are  more  illiterate,  fail  to  reach  as  high 
grades  in  school,  take  less  papers  and  magazines,  have  fewer  books  in 
I  their  homes,  attend  church  and  Sunday-school  less,  have  fewer  home 
\amusements,  attend  community  affairs  less  often. 

Landless  men  may  in  many  cases  be  accounted  individually  respon- 
sible for  these  differences,  but  the  fact  remains  that  our  rural  citizen- 
ship is  less  adequate  because  it  is  made  up  of  people  of  this  kind,  and 
would  be  more  adequate  if  these  people  could  be  made  more  prosperous 
and  happy. 

The  following  outstanding  disparaging  facts  are  set  forth  in  bold 
relief,  not  because  there  are  no  bright  spots  in  these  peoples'  lives,  but 
that  we  may  know  these  facts  and  if  possible  set  about  to  remedy  them. 

Only  .4  per  cent  of  the  crops  grown  by  the  black  croppers  of  the 
Coastal  Plain  county  are  improvement  crops. 

There  is  only  one  cow  for  every  138  tilled  acres  among  the  white 
croppers  and  one  cow  for  every  277  tilled  acres  among  the  black  crop- 
pers of  the  Coastal  Plain  county. 

The  black  croppers  produce  only  32.9  gallons  of  milk  per  year  per 
family.  This  is  but  .07  of  a  quart  per  individual  per  day.  Only  9 
per  cent  of  them  produce  milk  at  all. 

The  cash  income  of  the  white  tenants  and  croppers  of  the  Mountain 
county  is  less  than  10  cents  per  day  per  individual. 

Over  75  per  cent  of  all  the  landless  farmers  surveyed  used  short- 
time  credit  to  carry  on  their  farming  operations. 

The  equity  holdings  per  family  of  the  black  croppers  in  the  Piedmont 
county  is  $36. 

Thirteen  per  cent  of  all  the  farm  lands  included  in  this  survey  are 
being  farmed  by  insolvent  men. 

Seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  landless  farmers  are  sons  of  landless 
fathers. 

Two  per  cent  of  all  families  surveyed  are  living  in  one-room  houses. 
If  the  territory  covered  by  the  survey  is  typical,  this  means  that  some- 
thing over  6,000  rural  families  in  this  State  are  living  in  one-room 
houses.     If  we  include  two-room  houses,  then  over  42,000  rural  families 


Fabji  Economic  and  Social  Conditions  7 

of  the  State  are  found  to  be  living  in  these  types  of  houses.  Almost 
one-fifth  of  all  the  landless  families  surveyed  are  living  in  one-  or  two- 
room  houses. 

There  is  not  a  negro  family  or  a  white  tenant  or  cropper  family  in 
the  whole  area  surveyed  that  has  an  indoor  toilet  or  bath  tub. 

Over  31  per  cent  of  the  fathers  and  mothers  in  the  landless  families 
can  neither  write  nor  read. 

The  average  cropper  had  attained  a  school  status  of  only  third  grade. 
The  average  negro  had  attained  less  than  full  first-grade  education. 

Over  sixty-five  per  cent  of  all  landless  families  surveyed  take  no 
papers  or  magazines  whatsoever.  Less  than  seven  per  cent  of  them 
take  daily  papers. 

The  average  landless  family  for  all  surveyed  attended  less  than  two 
recreational  events  during  the  year  of  1922. 


THE  AREA  SURVEYED 

This  survey  included  1,014  farm  families.  Representative  areas  in 
three  typical  counties  in  the  three  major  geographic  sections  of  the 
State  were  covered.  The  areas  were  in  Edgecombe  County,  in  the 
Coastal  Plain  section;  Chatham  County,  in  the  Piedmont  section;  and, 
Madison  County,  in  the  Mountain  section.  A  fifteen-page  schedule  was 
used  in  the  survey.  Each  family  was  interviewed  personally  and  asked 
more  than  700  questions  about  farm  production,  farm  ownership,  and 
farm  life.  The  items  contained  in  the  following  tables  are  as  specific 
and  as  accurate  as  the  persons  interviewed  could  give.  Because  the 
volume  of  information  is  great,  the  tables  are  presented  with  the  mini- 
mum of  interpretation. 

THE  PEOPLE 

The  number  of  persons  and  the  number  of  families  surveyed  is 
relatively  unimportant  in  this  study.  Tables  I  to  III  are  presented  to 
show  the  scope  of  the  survey  and  as  basic  tables  from  which  all  other 
data  are  interpreted. 


Table  I — Families  and  Persons  by  Tenure 
(For  surveyed  area) 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain  ( 

Total 

Total 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

All 

Number  of 

Families     

78 

261 

181 

154 

231 

109 

490 

524 

1014 

Per  cent  of 

23.2 

76.8 

54.1 

45.9 

68.0 

32.0 

48.4 

51.6 

Number  of  Per- 

sons at  Home. 

419 

1316 

856 

834 

1160 

538 

2435 

2688 

5123 

Per  cent  of  Per- 

sons at  Home- 

24.2 

75.8 

50.7 

49.3 

68.3 

31.7 

47.6 

54.4 

..     . 

Average  Persons 

at    Home    per 

Family..  . 

5.37 

5.05 

4.17 

5.42 

5.02 

4.94 

4.97 

5.14 

5.05 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 

Table  II — Families  and  Persons  by  Color 
(For  surveyed  area) 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

Total 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

All 

Number  of 

203 
59.9 
1003 

57.8 

4.95 

136 

40  1 
732 

42.2 

5.02 

190 

56.8 
860 

50.8 

4.53 

145 

43.2 
830 

49.2 

5.72 

340 

733 
72.3 
3561 

69.7 

4.86 

277 
27.1 
1562 
30.3 

5.65 

1014 

Per  cent  of 

Number  of  Per- 
sons at  Home. 
Per  cent  of  Per- 

1698 

5123 

Average  Persons 
at    Home    per 
Family 

4.99 

4.17 

Table  III — Per  cent  of  Different  Tenure  and  Racial  Classes 
(For  surveyed  area) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

14.2 
17.3 
20.3 

1.47 

1.79 

5.9 
23.60 
42.6 

1.47 
11.33 

22.8 
11.95 
20.9 

4.16 

19.7 

17.2 
3.88 
11.2 

32.8 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

10.45 

Total 

17.25 

1.08 

25.72 

4.28 

18.78 

7.98 

9.94 

14.97 

THE  LAND  FARMED 


The  landless  families  were  tilling  48.5  per  cent  of  all  cultivated  land 
under  the  plow.  The  croppers  were  tilling  23.1  per  cent  of  it  and  the 
tenants  were  tilling  25.4  per  cent  of  it.  Tables  IY  to  VII  give  the 
detailed  information  for  the  three  counties. 


Table  IV — Land  in  Farms  by  Tenure  and  Race 
(For  territory  surveyed) 


Per  Tenure 

Per  Race 

Landed 

Landless 

Totals 

White 

Black 

54,281 
86.53 
8,947 
51.45 
18.2 

8,439 
13.47 

8,437 
48.55 
16.1 

62,720 
100 

17,386 
100 
17.1 

54,731 

87.28 
12,476 
717 
17.0 

7,989 

12.72 

4,910 

28.3 

17.4 

10 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  V — Land  in  Farms  per  Different  Tenure  Types 
(For  territory  surveyed) 


Landlord 
Operators 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

Total  acres 

35,115 
3,830 

19,166 
5,117 

4,421 
4,421 

4,018 
4,018 

62,720 
17,386 

Table  VI — Per  cent  of  Tilled  Acres  Farmed  by  Each  Tenure  and  Color  Class 

(Per  counties  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

19.80 
22.35 
32.22 

1.63 
1.60 

5.84 
23.73 
47.83 

1.840 

11.82 

.13 

21.54 
9.52 
12.73 

4.74 

19.80 

.60 

14.87 
3.24 
5.80 

29.74 

Piedmont 

7.94 
.69 

Total 

26.01 

.89 

29.00 

3.58 

14.62 

6.65 

7.92 

11.33 

Landed 

Landless 

White 

Black 

59.6 

40.4 

77.5 

22.5 

Table  VII — Per  cent  of  Tilled  Acres  Farmed  by  Different  Classes 
(For  territory  surveyed) 


Per  Tenure 

Per  Race 

Landed 

Landless 

White 

Black 

27.90 
61.40 
67.40 
51.44 

72.10 
38.60 
32.60 
48.56 

60.78 
59.70 
98.64 
77.6 

39.22 

Piedmont 

40.30 
1.36 

22.4 

The  outstanding  facts  apparent  in  Tables  IV  to  VII  are: 

1.  That  all  tenure  classes  are  farming  about  the  same  amount  of  land 
per  family — an  average  of  just  a  little  more  than  17  acres. 

2.  Landless  farmers  have  practically  all  the  land  under  their  direc- 
tion in  cultivation. 

3.  Landless  men  are  farming  the  greatest  percentage  of  land  in  the 
Coastal  Plain  and  least  in  the  Mountain  section. 

4.  Negro  farmers  were  farming  a  larger  per  cent  of  the  land  in  the 
Piedmont  than  in  either  of  the  other  counties. 


Fabm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


11 


FARM  CROP  PRACTICES 

An  attempt  was  made  to  discover  what  differences,  if  any,  there  were 
between  the  landed  and  landless  farmers  in  their  farm  practices.  Com- 
plete records  were  taken  on  all  crops,  crop  yield,  animals,  and  home 
supplies  produced  on  the  farms.  Tables  VIII  to  X  give  the  detailed 
information. 

Table  VIII — Amount  of  Exhaustive  and  Improvement  Crops  N 

(Per  counties  surveyed) 


Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

1,194 
99 

105 

345.5 
35.5 

113 

7 

1,366 
41 

309 

931 
39 

1,932 

i-3 

£5 

Improvement 

Total 

Per  cent  of  exhaustive 

Per  cent  of  improvement.. 

8 

O 

1,293 
92.3 

7.7 

105 
100 

381.0 

90.7 
9.3 

120 
94.0 
6.0 

1,407 
97.0 
3.0 

309 
100 

970 
96.0 
4.0 

1,940 
99.6 
0.4 

O 

Exhaustive . 

Improvement.-            

Total 

Per  cent  of  exhaustive 

Per  cent  of  improvement- 

1,091 
10S 

76 

10 

1,242 
29 

601 
33 

503 

7 

1,058 
4 

169 
5 

426 

Q 
H 

1,199 
91.05 
S.95 

86 

88.4 

11.6 

1,271 
97.7 
2.3 

634 
95.0 
5.0 

510 
98.6 
1.4 

1,062 
99.2 
O.S 

174 
97.4 
2.6 

426 
100 

g 

< 

Exhaustive 

Improvement 

Total 

629 
2,456 

2,007 
2,555 

6.5 

6. 

866 
353 

46 
9 

440 
114 

59 

o 

3,085 
20.4 
79.6 

4,562 
44.0 
56.0 

12.5 

52 

48 

1,219 
71.1 

2S.9 

57 

S4.2 

15.8 

554 
79.5 
20.5 

66 

Per  cent  of  exhaustive 

Per  cent  of  improvement- 

S9.4 
10.6 

The  following  lists  are  the  crops  as  they  were  classified  for  constructing 
Table  VIII : 


Improvement  Crops 

Alfalfa 

Soy  beans 

Cow  peas 

Rye 

Hay 

Cultivated  Pasture 


Exhaustive  Crops 
Cotton 
Tobacco 
Corn 
Wheat 
Oats 
Peanuts 
Sorghum 
Potatoes 
Truck 


12 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  IX — Amount  and  Per  cent  of  Exhaustive  Crops  Per  Tenure  and 

Color  Class 
(By  county) 


COASTAL  PLAIN 

PIEDMONT 

MOUNTAIN 

■a 

0) 

0 
03 

c 

03 
i-l 

cd 

— 

s 

■a 

a; 
-a 
a 

03 

13 

a 

03 

CD 

IB 

03 

s 

-a 

CD 

-a 

CI 
03 

-a 
a 

03 

i-l 

a 

03 

3 

Total  acres  exhaustive 

crops - 

Total  crops  -A- 

Per  cent  exhaustive 

1757 
1899 
94.0 

4538 
4626 
99.4 

3836 

4051 
82.4 

2459 

2474 
99.5 

3010 
3190 
94.4 

2156 
2172 
99.1 

3005 
3154 
95.5 

2161 
2208 

97.7 

2642.5 

7659.5 

34.5 

1413 
1896 
74.5 

3942 
9420 
42.7 

113.5 
135.5 
83.8 

Total  exhaustive 

Total  crop  acres 

Per  cent  exhaustive 

6295 
6525 
96.5 

5166 
5362 
94.6 

4055.5 

9555.5 

42.9 

The  following  facts  are  apparent  in  Tables  VIII  and  IX : 

1.  The  practice  of  using  exhaustive  crops  is  greatest  among  the 
croppers  and  least  among  the  landlord  operators.  It  runs  as  high  as 
99.6  per  cent  for  the  black  croppers  in  the  Coastal  Plains  and  as  low 
as  20.4  per  cent  for  the  landlord  operators  in  the  mountains. 

2.  The  farmers  of  the  Coastal  Plain  county  are  using  96.5  per  cent 
of  exhaustive  crops  and  those  of  the  Piedmont  county  are  using  94.6 
per  cent  exhaustive  crops.  Those  of  the  Mountain  county  are  using  only 
42.9  per  cent  exhaustive  crops. 

3.  The  landless  farmers  are  following  a  system  of  farming  which 
exhausts  the  soil  to  considerable  degree  greater  than  are  the  landed 
farmers. 

4.  The  negro  farmers  are  using  a  more  exhaustive  crop  system  than 
are  the  white  farmers. 


Table  X — Per  cent  of  Tilled  Land  Planted  in  Cotton,  Tobacco,  and  Com 
(By  counties  surveyed) 


COASTAL  PLAIN 

PIEDMONT 

MOUNTAIN 

-§ 

u 

d 

03 

o 

c  h 
■t  a 
OO 

03 
C 
CD 

h 

u 

a 
a 

O 
h 

U 

73 

o 

s 

03 

o 

0  fe 

£  a 
OO 

a 

03 

c 

CD 

H 

CD 

a 
a 
o 

C 

V 
5 

a 

03 

o 

S  a 
OO 

c 

03 

c 

CD 

CD 

a 
a 
o 

O 

7.55 
3.34 

7.24 

2.62 
1.46 
2.75 

10.50 
4.97 
9.60 

20.36 

8.57 
14.64 

4.64 
1.45 

17.75 

6.17 

1.61 

18.56 

6.52 
1.64 
15.05 

2.23 
1.18 

4.59 

Tobacco   _  _-   _ 

Corn _._     .. 

.39 
6.93 

.67 
22.50 

.22 
10.68 

.12 
5.74 

Totals 

18.13 

6.83 

25.07 

43.57 

23.84 

26.34 

23.21 

8.00 

7.32 

23.11 

10.90 

5.86 

Combined    percentage 
by  counties...     _._   _ 

93 

.60 

81 

.39 

47.25 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


13 


1.  In  considering  crops  which  exhaust  the  soil  it  is  generally  assumed 
that  such  major  crops  as  cotton,  tobacco,  and  corn  are  the  sole  or  only 
exhaustive  crops.  A  comparison  of  Tables  IX  and  X  shows  that  the 
other  minor  exhaustive  crops  such  as  wheat,  sorghum,  and  vegetables 
raise  the  per  cent  of  all  acres  planted  to  exhaustive  crops. 

2.  From  Table  X  it  is  apparent  that  the  use  of  exhaustive  crops  is 
highest  in  the  county  in  which  the  tenancy  rate  is  highest  and  lowest 
in  the  county  in  which  the  tenancy  is  lowest. 

3.  In  the  Coastal  Plain  county,  where  both  the  tenancy  rate  and 
exhaustive  crops  percentages  are  high,  the  landless  farmers  are  leading 
in  exhaustive  crop  farming. 

A  study  was  made  of  comparative  crop  yields.  Tables  XI  to  XIII 
present  the  comparative  data  for  tenure  classes  for  the  three  counties 
surveved. 


Table  XI — Average  Production  Per  Acre  of  Leading  Cash  Crops  for  Different 

Classes  of  Farms 
(Coastal  Plain  County) 


COTTON 


TOBACCO 


1  Negro  Tenant 415      lbs.  per  i 

2  Negro  Cropper 383     lbs.  per  i 

3  White  Cropper 381     lbs.  per  - 

4  White  Owner .380      lbs.  per  i 

5  Negro  Owner 378     lbs.  per  ■ 

6  White  Tenant 367.5  lbs.  per 


1  White  Tenant 823  lbs.  per  i 

2  White  Cropper .802  lbs.  per  i 

3  Negro  Tenant 752  lbs.  per  i 

4  White  Owner 751  lbs.  per  i 

5  Negro  Cropper 720  lbs.  per  i 

6  Negro  Owner... 535  lbs.  per 


CORN 


1  White  Cropper 18.3  bu.  per  i 

2  White  Tenant 16.9  bu.  per 

3  Negro  Tenant 16.7  bu.  per  i 

4  Negro  Cropper 14.3  bu.  per  i 

5  Negro  Owner 13.3  bu.  per 

6  White  Owner 11.1  bu.  per  i 


14 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  XII — Average  Production  Per  Acre  of  Leading  Cash  Crops  for  Different 

Classes  of  Farms 
(Piedmont  County) 


COTTON 


TOBACCO 


1  White  Owner 308.5  lbs.  per  i 

2  Negro  Owner .290      lbs.  per  i 

3  White  Cropper 286.5  lbs.  per  i 

4  Negro  Tenant 273.5  lbs.  per  i 

5  White  Tenant . ..270.5  lbs.  per  i 

6  Negro  Cropper 265.5  lbs.  per  i 


1  White  Owner 585      lbs.  per  i 

2  White  Tenant 462      lbs.  per  i 

3  Negro  Tenant 439      lbs.  per  < 

4  Negro  Owner 411      lbs.  per  i 

5  Negro  Cropper 409      lbs.  per  < 

6  White  Cropper 250.5  lbs.  per 


CORN 


1  White  Owner 16.25  bu.  per 

2  White  Tenant ...14.7    bu.  per  ■ 

3  Negro  Owner 14.2    bu.  per  ■ 

4  White  Cropper 14.1    bu.  per 

5  Negro  Tenant 14.02  bu.  per  ■ 

6  Negro  Cropper 13.12  bu.  per  l 


Table  XIII — Average  Production  Per  Acre  of  Leading  Cash  Crops  for  Dif- 
ferent Classes  of  Farms 
(For  Mountain  County)* 


TOBACCO 


CORN 


1  White  Tenant 632  lbs.  per 

2  White  Cropper 624  lbs.  per 

3  White  Owner 517  lbs.  per  i 


1  White  Cropper 25.8  bu.  per 

2  White  Tenant _._25.8  bu.  per 

3  White  Owner 25.4  bu.  per  > 


"No  cotton  raised  in  this  county. 


From  Tables  XI,  XII,  and  XIII  it  is  apparent  that  the  landless  men 
do  not  suffer  by  comparison  with  land-owners  in  crop  yields.  In  the 
case  of  tobacco  production  in  the  Coastal  Plain  county  it  is  the  landless 
men  who  produce  the  best  yield.  This  is  true  probably  because  of  the 
careful  supervision  which  they  receive  from  the  landlords  and  because 
they  use  their  whole  families  to  assist  in  producing  and  caring  for  the 
crop.  The  negro  owner-operator  falls  below  the  negro  tenant  probably 
for  the  same  reason.  None  of  the  landless  classes  ranks  high  in  the 
Piedmont  county  where  this  careful  supervision  is  absent. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


15 


LIVESTOCK  PRACTICES 

It  is  universally  recognized  that  North  Carolina  needs  more  livestock 
on  the  farms  of  all  sections  of  the  State.  The  presence  of  animals 
indicate  three  significant  things  in  farming  and  farm  life.  Work  ani- 
mals lessen  the  amount  of  human  manual  labor.  Dairy  stock  assist  in 
solving  the  home  food  supply  problem.  Stock  cattle,  swine,  sheep,  and 
goats  furnish  the  basis  of  mixed  and  diversified  farming  and  help  to 
maintain  soil  fertility.  It  is  when  we  measure  North  Carolina  farming 
in  these  terms  that  tenant-  and  cropper-farming  show  up  at  their  worst. 
Tables  XIV  to  XVII  give  the  ownership  of  livestock  rather  than  the 
presence  of  livestock  and  so  make  cropper-farming  appear  worse  than 
it  is.  The  landlord  generally  furnishes  the  work  animals  for  his  crop- 
pers. Even  so,  the  absence  of  other  types  of  livestock  is  tragic  and  the 
small  amount  of  horse  power  used  by  croppers  is  striking.  The  white 
tenants  in  the  Coastal  Plain  county  have  only  about  two-thirds  as  many 
livestock  per  acre  as  the  landlords  have  and  about  four-fifths  as  many 
as  the  owner-operators  have. 


Table  XIV — Tilled  Acres  Per  Farm  Animal 
(Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

6.75 
92.3 
38.1 

2.5 
46.3 
.397 

6.55 
52.5 
35.0 

1.88 

11.2 

4.75 
38.1 
.26 

10.0 

40.0 
5.45 

12.9 
117.2 
74.0 
3.33 

12.88 
15.45 
12.88 
4.81 

194.0 
485.0 
138.5 
2.05 

388.0 

Bulls,  calves  and  stock  cattle 

Cows 

970.0 

277.0 

4.1 

.51 

.04 

.445 

.44 

.835 

.33 

.66 

• 


Table  XV — Tilled  Acres  Per  Farm  Animal 
(Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

11.1 
9.64 

11.2 
6.06 

66.6 
.23 

7.15 
14.30 
10.6 

7.84 

.27 

8.54 
17.9 
9.15 
4.17 
106. 
.215 

8.8 
17.6 
12.2 

7.45 

.37 

8.5 
18.2 
10.65 

4.48 

31.95 

.24 

10.74 

23.1 

12.65 

9.25 

34.7 

21.7 

8.28 

21.3 

Bulls,  calves  and  stock  cattle 

6.1 
19.4 

10.93 

.27 

.35 

.555 

16 


Xorth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


/ 


Table  XVI — Tilled  Acres  Per  Farm  Animal 
(Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

27.05 
10.0 
22.8 
16.95 
13.05 
.737 

16.5 
13.05 
14.6 
11.98 
55.7 
.535 

11.18 

27.10 

11.71 

7.65 

152.5 

.359 

188.5 
46.1 
11.6 
11.8 

Bulls,  calves  and  stock  cattle    . 
Cows 

Poultry 

.29 

From  Tables  XIV,  XV,  and  XVI  the  following  facts  are  apparent : 

1.  That  the  landless  farmers  have  a  poorer  livestock  ratio  than  farm 
owners  have. 

2.  That  the  croppers  own  practically  no  animals.  This  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  practically  all  their  w-ork  stock  are  furnished  by  the  landlords 
from  whom  they  rent. 


Table  XVII — *Total  Farm  Animals,  Excluding  Poultry,  Per  Crop  Acre  by 

Tenure  Class 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

.61 
.465 
314 

.73 
.429 

.50 
.531 
.335 

.31 
.387 

.41 

.521 

.345 

.43 
.323 

.40 

.198 

.199 

.25 

.164 

Total 

Landed 

Landless 

White 

Black 

.41 

.415 

.302 

.65 

.475 

.300 

.341 
.329 
.282 

.474 
.486 
.31 

.301 

.314 

*Pasture  is  included  in  crop  acreage.     If  this  were  not  so  the  Mountain  county  would  show  a  much 
better  animal  ratio. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


17 


The  order  in  which,  all  classes  rank  in  livestock  production  is   as 
follows : 


Landlord  operator Black 

Landlord  operator White 

Owner  operator.. White 

Tenant White 

Owner  operator White 

Landlord  operator White 

Tenant Black 

Landlord  operator Black 

Tenant White 

Cropper White 

Owner  operator Black 

Tenant White 

Owner  operator White 

Tenant Black 

Landlord  operator White 

Owner  operator Black 

Cropper • Black 

Cropper White 

Cropper White 

Cropper Black 


Coastal  Plain 
Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Piedmont 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Coastal  Plain 
Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

Mountain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

Coastal  Plain 
Coastal  Plain 

Mountain 

Piedmont 

Piedmont 


.73 

.61 

.531 

.521 

.50 

.465 

.43 

.429 

.41 

.40 

.387 

.335 

.335 

.323 

.314 

.31 

.25 

.199 

.198 

.164 


HOME-PRODUCED  FOOD   SUPPLIES 

Farming  should  always  he  an  enterprise  the  chief  ohject  of  which  is 
to  make  possible  an  adequate  life  for  the  families  who  farm.  At  many 
points  in  the  Social  Information  will  be  found  indexes  to  the  standards 
of  living  of  the  families  surveyed.  The  items  of  home-produced  food 
supplies  are  presented  here  in  order  that  they  may  be  presented  near 
the  items  of  cash  incomes.  Farming  is  a  combination  of  producing  for 
the  market  and  for  home  consumption.  A  detailed  study  was  made  of 
the  chief  items  in  the  families  food  supplies.  Only  such  items  as  sugar, 
salt,  and  spice  were  left  out  of  the  investigation. 

Tables  XVIII  to  XXI  present  the  basic  and  summarized  information. 


Table  XVIII — Living  Raised  and  Bought  Per  Family 
(Coastal  Plain  County) 


- 

Operator 
'     Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

$  400 
56 

$  514 

82 

$  386 
131 

$  474 

134 

$  323 
93 

S  200 

113 

$  194 

96 

S  156 

Value  living — bought 

110 

%  456 
87.7 
12.3 

S  596 

86.2 
13.8 

$  517 

74.7 
25.3 

$  608 

78.0 
22.0 

$  416 

77.6 
22.4 

$  313 

63.8 
36.2 

S  290 

66.9 
33.1 

$  266 

58.6 

Per  cent  living — bought 

41.4 

18 


Nokth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  XIX — Living  Raised  and  Bought  Per  Family 
(Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Value  living — raised 

$  517 
71 

$  323 
82 

$  467 
154 

$  346 
186 

S  328 
62 

S  198 
115 

S  257 
98 

S  172 

114 

%  588 
87.9 
12.1 

$  405 
79.7 
20.3 

%  621 

75.2 
24.8 

S  532 
65.0 
35.0 

S  390 
84.2 
15.8 

$  313 
63.2 
36.8 

%  355 
72.4 
27.6 

S  286 

60.2 

39.8 

Table  XX — Living  Raised  and  Bought  Per  Family 
(Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

S  627 

13 

$  545 
24 

$  475 
28 

$  410 
34 

$  640 
98.0 
2.0 

$  569 
95.8 
4.2 

$  503 
94.44 
5.56 

$  444 
92.35 

7.65 

Per  cent  living — raised 

Per  cent  living — bought 

J 


Table  XXI — Living  Raised  and  Bought  Per  Family 
(Total  area  surveyed) 


Landed 

Landless 

White 

Black 

Total 

$  481 
70 

$  270 
86 

J  447 

62 

$  213 
121 

$  382 

78 

$  551 
87.3 
12.7 

$  356 
75.8 
24.2 

$  509 

87.8 

■     12.2 

$  334 

63.8 
36.2 

$  460 

83.0 

17.0 

1.  The  per  cent  of  the  total  family  food  supply  that  is  raised  on  the 
farm  descends  almost  consistently  from  landlord  to  owner  to  tenant  to 
cropper  in  all  counties. 

2.  The  per  cent  of  total  food  produced  at  home  is  universally  higher 
for  the  land-owning  families  than  it  is  for  the  landless  families  and 
higher  for  the  white  families  than  for  the  negro  families. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


19 


3.  The  total  value  of  food  supplies  for  families  averages '  highest  in 
the  Mountain  county,  next  in  the  Coastal  Plain  and  lowest  in  the 
Piedmont. 

Tables  XXII  to  XLII  present  detailed  analyses  of  different  items 
of  food  supply. 

Table  XXII — Average  Number  of  Gallons  of  Milk  Produced  Per  Year 

Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


• 

Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

180.6 

502 

609.9 

353 
283.5 

170.6 
519.5 
551.5 

200 
369 

92.6 
341 
521.2 

83.6 
327.5 

78.2 
278 
426.5 

32.9 

Piedmont ..              .  . 

Mountain...       . 

170.5 

Total 

482 

316 

549 

352 

308 

177 

222 

65.3 

Table  XXIII — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  Milk 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

39.6 
100. 
92.7 

60.0 
83.3 

40.0 
98.7 
99.8 

20.0 
89.5 

20.8 
92.5 
100. 

35.7 
97.0 

17.1 
92.4 
94.6 

9.0 

Piedmont 

91.0 

Total 

80.2 

72.6 

94.3 

81.2 

66.0 

86.1 

55.6 

28.6 

Table  XXIV — Quarts  of  Milk  Per  Day  Per  Individual 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

.393 
.142 
1.5 

.438 
.691 

.432 
'  1.17 
1.14 

.33 
.705 

.203 
.819 
1.12 

.152 
.612 

.179 
.586 
1.03 

.0706 

Piedmont 

.341 

20 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


J 


Table  XXV — Average  Number  of  Pounds  of  Butter  Produced  Per  Family 

Per  Year 


(Foi 

area 

surveyed) 

Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

55.8 
148.6 
125.1 

73.0 
95.8 

30.5 
165.9 

134.9 

52.0 
115.6 

24.99 
110.6 
115.4 

16.79 
114.4 

18.46 
84.7 
117.5 

10.45 

72.5 

Total 

114.1 

94.0 

135.5 

107.8 

78.5 

77.8 

60.8 

23.4 

Table  XXVI — Per  cent  of  Families  that  Produce  Butter 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

37.5 
94.8 
95.6 

60.0 
66.6 

40.0 
92.1 
98.6 

20.0 
100.0 

20.8 
87.5 
98.6 

35.7 
92.5 

13.8 
75.8 
94.8 

7.1 

74.5 

Total 

79.7 

62.6 

93.6 

81.5 

64.5 

82.6 

49.5 

25.1 

Table  XXVII — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Pork  Raised  for  Home  Use 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

697 
654 
438 

1025 
502 

912 
532 
438 

580 
412 

597 
360 
347 

328 
368 

375 
405 

282 

337 

201 

Total 

582 

739 

504 

432 

452 

360 

346 

305 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


21 


Table  XXYIII — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  Pork 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

64.7 
86.2 
89.9 

100.0 

83.4 

85.1 
93.7 
93.2 

60.0 
92.1 

79.3 
82.5 
97.2 

57.1 
93.9 

.  50.0 
69.3 
73.7 

67.9 

77.2 

Mountain 

Total 

81.7 

90.9 

92.7 

88.4 

86.8 

87.6 

60.6 

70.2 

Table  XXIX — Average  Number  of  Pounds  of  Lard  Produced  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

150.0 
91.0 
73.5 

350.0 

51.7 

176.0 
65.5 
66.4 

160.0 
51.8 

121.5 

44.9 
59.7 

66.0 
37.6 

73.8 
52.0 
43.1 

59.1 

24.6 

Mountain 

Total 

101.0 

169.0 

76.5 

64.5 

84.5 

41.6 

60.4 

50.7 

Table  XXX — Per  cent  of  Families  'Who  Produce  Lard 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

66.6 
86.1 
89.7 

100.0 
83.5 

85.0 
91.0 
93.4 

60.0 
89.5 

79.2 
72.6 
92.1 

50.0 
81.9 

46.5 
61.6 
76.4 

67.7 

68.6 

Total 

82.1 

91.0 

91.1 

86.1 

84.6 

76.2 

58.7 

72.0 

22 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  XXXI — Average  Number  of  Dozens  Eggs  Produced  Per  Family  Per 

Year 


(For  area 

surveyed) 

Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

104.5 
78.9 
88.6 

83.0 
60.0 

86.9 
33.8 
71.4 

148.0 
32.7 

106.5 

64.8 
70.0 

48.5 
41.3 

90.0 
42.6 
66.6 

41.5 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

29.4 

Total 

89.9 

70.5 

61.15 

46.0 

83.9 

41.8 

76.3 

23  1 

Table  XXXII — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  Eggs 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

85.5 
93.1 
92.8 

100.0 
83.4 

85.2 
81.1 
96.4 

100.0 

97.4 

76.6 
94.9 
98.5 

78.6 
95.5 

87.9 
92.5 
100.0 

71.5 

87.7 

Mountain 

Total 

91.0 

91.0 

90.6 

96.6 

85.9 

92.5 

92.5 

74.9 

J 


Table  XXXIII — Average  Number  of  Poultry  Produced  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

72.7 
49.1 
56.5 

54.0 
30.0 

48.0 
50.9 
47.3 

54.0 
32.9 

62.5 
33.2 
43.2 

23.6 

27.2 

53.5 
20.4 
44.3 

27.5 

20.3 

Total --- 

58.5 

40.8 

48.0 

35.5 

49.2 

26.6 

46.4 

26.2 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


23 


Table  XXXIV — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Raise  Poultry 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

85.5 
93.1 
94.1 

100.0 

83.4 

85.2 
92.4 
99.7 

100.0 

97.4 

86.0 
94.9 
100.0 

■    78.9 
97.0 

87.9 
89.7 
97.2 

71.9 

94.4 

Total 

91.5 

91.0 

97.6 

97.6 

94.1 

93.7 

94.9 

88.5 

Table  XXXV — Average  Number  of  Barrels  of  Flour  Produced  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

1.17 
8.5 

.17 

1.11 
2.6 

.34 

.35 
1.9 

.19 

Mountain 

2.2 

Total 

3.74 

.14 

•  1.92 

.31 

.79 

.13 

.77 

Table  XXXVI — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  Flour 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

25.8 
62.4 

16.6 

15.2 
56.2 

18.4 

7.5 
46.5 

7.6 

Mountain 

50.0 

Total 

33.2 

.92 

39.5 

16.5 

19.3 

1.63 

1.75 

24 


I^okth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


J 


Table  XXXVII — Average  Number  of  Bushels  of  Potatoes  Produced 

Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

40.1 
29.2 
19.9 

28.0 
26.5 

40.9 
24.2 
21.8 

49.2 
23.5 

30.2 
18.8 
18.8 

25.6 
12.1 

6.91 
10.6 
15.8 

19.1 
8.96 

Total 

28.4 

27.1 

24.0 

26.5 

23.6 

14.6 

10.5 

16.5 

Table  XXXVIII — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  Potatoes  (Irish 

and  Sweet) 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

81.2 
89.9 
92.5 

60.0 
83.3 

85.0 
91.2 
100.0 

100.0 
89.5 

70.1 
87.5 
100.0 

71.6 
92.5 

72.4 
61.5 
94.7 

75.7 

68.6 

Mountain 

Total 

88.5 

72.6 

97.6 

90.6 

95.1 

98.9 

78.9 

73.5 

Table  XXXIX — Average  Number  of  Bushels  of  Meal  Raised  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain.  _     

Piedmont .  .  -  

Mountain _- 

9.15 
8.91 
21.7 

13.9 

7.2 
5.31 

8.15 
9.05 
24.1 

12.0 
8.1 

6.75 

4.7 

21.7 

4.92 
8.9 

7.11 
1.69 
22.3 

5.6 
3.76 

Total 

6.15 

18.6 

8.55 

11.95 

8.19 

12.3 

5.25 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


Table  XL — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  Ileal 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

73.0 
77.6 
95.5 

60.0 
66.6 

65.2 
82.5 
97.2 

60.0 
65.7 

62.5 
45.0 
100.0 

42.7 
51.5 

63.6 
23.0 
100.0 

46.3 

40.0 

Mountain 

Total 

84.5 

63.6 

90.6 

65.0 

72.7 

50.0 

71.5 

44.7 

Table  XLI — Average  Number  Gallons  of  Sorghum  Molasses  Produced 

Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

.104 
3.48 
11.45 

.48 
2.5 

2.55 
1.73 
15.9 

3.0 
7.13 

.572 
3.05 
16.2 

1.82 
7.02 

.102 
6.2 

.625 

.315 

Total 

5.7 

3.53 

10.5 

6.64 

6.5 

5.84 

2.2 

.55 

V 


Table  XLI  (a) — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Produce  2Iolasses 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

2.04 
19.0 
5.8 

20.0 
16.6 

1.5 
13.9 

62.1 

20.0 
29.0 

5.2 
14.9 
79.0 

7.15 
39.4 

1.74 
34.2 

6.25 

5.23 

Total 

2.97 

18.3 

4.41 

27.9 

35.0 

33.7 

12.8 

6.1 

26 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  XLII — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Raise  Garden  and  Orchard  Products 

(For  area  surveyed) 


. 

Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

87.5 
93.2 
92.6 

100.0 
83.5 

95.0 
97.4 
98.1 

100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
97.5 
100.0 

78.7 
100.0 

89.7 
92.1 
100.0 

89.0 

91.0 

Total. 

91.1 

91.0 

98.5 

100.0 

99.7 

96.3 

97.5 

89.3 

In  Tables  XXII  to  XLIII  the  following  general  facts  appear: 

1.  That  the  land-owning  families  are  almost  universally  producing 
more  home  supplies  than  are  the  landless. 

2.  The  order  of  priority  generally  runs  landlord-operator,  owner- 
operator,  tenant,  cropper.  Where  this  order  is  violated  it  is  most  often 
because  the  owner-operator  is  out-producing  the  owner-landlord. 

3.  The  Coastal  Plain  county  is  best  in  the  production  of  pork,  lard, 
poultry,  eggs,  and  potatoes. 

4.  The  Piedmont  county  is  best  in  flour  and  about  the  same  as  the 
Mountain  county  in  butter. 

5.  The  Mountain  county  is  best  in  milk,  meal,  and  molasses,  and 
about  the  same  as  the  Piedmont  county  in  butter. 

6.  Nevertheless  the  Mountain  county  farmers  are  producing  the  most 
home  supplies,  the  Coastal  Plain  county  next  and  the  Piedmont  county 
least. 

7.  The  absence  of  milk  is  the  most  striking  among  all  these  items. 
The  mountain  farmers  are  the  only  ones  that  consistently  produce  more 
than  a  quart  of  milk  per  day  per  individual.  This  falls  as  low  as  .07 
quart  per  day  per  individual  for  the  negro  croppers  of  the  Coastal 
Plain  county.  This  means  less  than  three-tenths  of  a  glass  of  milk  per 
day  per  individual.     This  information  is  given  in  Table  XXIV. 

8.  From  Table  XXVI  it  is  seen  that  less  than  50  per  cent  of  the 
farmers  of  the  Coastal  Plain  county  produce  butter.  Over  92  per  cent 
of  the  black  croppers  of  this  county  do  not  produce  butter  and  only 
three  per  cent  of  them  buy  butter. 

9.  The  Coastal  Plain  county  has  an  exceptionally  good  home  produc- 
tion of  pork  and  lard. 

10.  There  are  less  than  50  head  of  all  kinds  of  poultry  per  family  for 
all  families  surveyed. 

11.  Home  supplies  should  be  considered  in  conjunction  with  cash  in- 
come in  order  to  gain  an  adequate  appraisal  of  consumption  habit. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


27 


CASH  INCOME 

The  last  section  presented  the  facts  concerning  home  supplies  pro- 
duced by  the  different  tenure  classes.  These  facts,  in  conjunction  with 
cash  income,  give  a  picture  of  the  sources  from  which  these  people  must 
get  their  food  and  other  consumption  goods.  An  appraisal  of  the  con- 
sumption units  of  products  produced  on  the  farm  for  home  consumption 
shows  all  of  these  people  to  be  cash  crop  farmers.  Tables  XLIII  to 
XLV  show  the  amount  of  cash  income  these  people  get  with  which  to 
purchase  additional  consumption  goods. 

Table  XLIII — Annual  Cash  Income  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

$2385.85 
994.70 
680.16 

$1996.00 
379.00 

$1129.50 
604.17 
261.84 

$1670.00 
536.15 

%  854.15 
336.35 
172.84 

$  711.07 
374.24 

$  700.84 
364.74 
155.89 

$  640.59 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

208.60 

Table  XLIV — Annual  Cash  Income  Per  Individual 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

$  452.65 
252.55 
154.88 

$  226.81 
84.33 

$  253.82 
124.27 
49.49 

$  253.03 
92.19 

$  174.45 
73.92 
33.62 

$  118.51 
64.40 

$  143.13 
64.74 
34.24 

$  125.64 

36.87 

Table  XLV — Daily  Cash  Income  Per  Individual 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

$     1.255 
.705 
.424 

$      .622 
.23 

$       .695 
.34 
.135 

$       .694 
.252 

$      .478 
.201 
.092 

$      .324 
.176 

$       .392 
.177 
.093 

$      .344 

.101 

28 


]STorth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


From  Tables  XLHI,  XLIV,  and  XLV  it  is  apparent : 

1.  That  landless  farmers  have  a  lower  cash  income  than  land-owners. 
This  fact  coupled  with  the  fact  that  they  almost  universally  produce  a 
smaller  amount  of  home  supplies  indicates  the  conditions  under  which 
they  live. 

2.  The  cash  income  is  from  three  to  five  times  as  high  in  the  Coastal 
Plain  county  as  in  the  Mountain  county. 

3.  The  cash  income  per  person  of  white  tenants  and  white  croppers 
of  the  Mountain  county  is  less  than  10  cents  per  day  and  that  for  the 
negro  croppers  of  the  Piedmont  county  is  barely  10  cents  per  day. 


-J 


CREDIT 


The  average  farmer  uses  credit  for  three  chief  purposes :  land  pur- 
chases, operating  funds,  and  store  supplies.  Tables  XLYI  to  LIV 
show  the  per  cent  who  use  credit,  the  amount  they  used,  the  purpose  for 
which  they  use  it,  and  the  sources  from  which  they  obtain  it. 


Table  XLVI — Amount  and  Use  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

83.5 

$723.00 

50.1 

49.9 

100.0 

$734.00 
52.9 
47.1 

90.0 

$422.00 

62.8 

37.2 

100.0 

$723.00 

51.6 

49.4 

92.2 

$455.00 

55.5 

44.5 

78.6 

$401.00 

62.4 

37.6 

89.6 

$360.60 

68.6 

31.4 

97.4 

Average  credit  per  family 

Per  cent  for  living 

Per  cent  for  fertilizers,  seed,  etc... 

$314.00 
66.9 
33.1 

Table  XLVII — Amount  and  Use  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Per  cent  use  credit 

Average  credit  per  family 

Per  cent  for  living 

Per  cent  for  fertilizers,  seed,  etc... 

34.5 

$  46.50 

25.6 

74.4 

83.2 

$173.00 

28.5 

71.5 

58.2 

$  43.80 

42.7 

57.3 

81.6 

$124.00 

43.2 

56.8 

82.0 

$102.00 

43.1 

56.9 

97.0 

$128.00 

51.0 

49.0 

61.6 

$123.00 

56.8 

43.2 

91.1 

$110.00 

49.8 

51.2 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


29 


Table  XLVIII — Amount  and  Use  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

2.9 

$  15.95 

54.6 

45.4 

8.02 
$  16.04 
13.3 

86.7 

5.6 

$    5.00 

100.0 

15.8 
S    6.21 

95.8 

4.2 

Average  credit  per  family... 

Per  cent  for  fertilizers,  tools,  seed, 

Table  XLIX — Source  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

76.0 

86.4 

82.2 

100.0 

82.3 
11.6 

2.56 

3.19 

.35 

93.4 
6.5 

.1 

78.1 
18.1 

2.75 
1.05 

79.0 

20  5 

Per  cent  from  landlord  who  is 

21.1 
2.9 

13.6 

16.6 
1.2 

Per  cent  from  other  sources 

.5 

Table  L — Source  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

95.8 
0.7 

62.0 
20.8 

17.0 

62.6 
18.7 

25.8 

66.2 

Per  cent  from  landlord  who  is 

2.7 
.8 

18.7 

8.0 

30 


Xorth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission   • 


Table  LI — Source  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Per  cent  from  merchant 

100.0 

29.2 

100.0 

89.0 
4.2 

Per  cent  from  landlord  who  is 

10.4 
60.4 

6.8 

Table  LII — Source  of  Short-Time  and  Intermediate  Credit 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Land 
Owners 

Landless 

Whites 

Blacks 

All 

Per  cent  from  merchant 

81.4 

78.0 

17.33 

2.54 

1.83 

.3 

79.7 
7.3 
1.3 
9.4 
2.3 

78.4 

17.9 

2.2 

1.2 

.3 

79.27 
11.10 

1.63 

Per  cent  from  bank 

Per  cent  from  other  sources...        _.            ... 

14.7 
3.9 

6.40 
1.60 

Table  LIII — Some  Aspects  of  Short-Time  Farm  Credit 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

37.1 

75.8 

$137.50 

$224.10 

25.2 

74.07 

14.7 

1.83 

34.75 

60.0 

65.25 

40.0 

All 


Per  cent  use  credit 

Average  credit  per  family 

*Per  cent  "Restrictive"  credit... 

Per  cent  from  baak 

Per  cent  for  living 

Per  cent  for  fertilizers,  tools,  etc 


58.2 

$182.40 
56.53 
6.40 
50.9 
49.1 


*"Restrictive  Credit"  is  credit  granted  by  some  one  who  has  power  of  restricting  or  controlling 
the  activities  of  the  ones  to  whom  it  is  granted. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


31 


Table  LIV — Per  cent  of  Farmers  Who  Produce  Crops  Under  Crop  Lien 
or  Landlord  Credit 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain ._  

Piedmont _.   .  __  __     

15.9 
46.4 

78.0 
96.60 

9.7 
29.3 
5.2 

27.7 
69.5 

48.16 
37.0 

96.6 

97.7 

68.25 
70.7 
14.4 

98.4 
90.7 

Land  Owners 

Landless 

White 

Black 

All  Surveyed 

25.2 

74.07 

37.3 

90.1 

56.53 

Governor  Bickett  described  the  crop  lien  as  "the  boll  weevil  of  North 
Carolina."  A  total  of  $185,000  of  credit  was  used  by  the  1,014  families 
surveyed  or  an  average  of  $182.40  per  family  for  the  year.  More  than 
a  half  (50.9  per  cent)  of  this  credit  went  for  food,  clothing,  and  home 
supplies.  The  remainder  was  used  for  fertilizer,  tools,  and  stock  feed. 
The  landless  used  62.4  per  cent  of  their  credit  for  living  purposes  as 
compared  to  43.8  per  cent  used  for  this  purpose  by  the  land-owners. 
This  means  that  a  larger  per  cent  of  the  credit  of  the  tenants  and  crop- 
pers goes  for  consumption  goods  than  for  production  goods. 

The  Coastal  Plain  farmers  use  the  vast  majority  of  all  credit — $436 
to  the  family  as  compared  to  $93.50  for  a  Piedmont  family  and  $10 
for  a  Mountain  family.  In  the  Coastal  Plain  county  only  7.7  per  cent 
of  all  those  surveyed  did  a  cash  business  as  compared  to  25.4  per. cent 
in  the  Piedmont  county  and  41.8  per  cent  in  the  Mountain  county.  Of 
the  entire  landless  group  surveyed  24.2  per  cent  do  cash  business  as 
compared  to  62.9  per  cent  of  the  land-owners  who  finance  themselves. 

Four-fifths  (81  per  cent)  of  all  the  credit  comes  from  merchants,  11.1 
per  cent  from  landlords,  6.4  per  cent  from  banks  and  1.6  per  cent  from 
other  sources — mainly  neighbors  and  relatives. 

Two  kinds  of  this  credit — that  from  merchants  where  a  crop  lien  is 
given  and  that  from  landlords — may  be  called  "restrictive"  credit.  In 
cases  involving  56.53  per  cent  of  all  the  credit  of  the  1,014  families 
surveyed  the  creditor  may  exercise  "restrictive"  powers  over  the  sale  of 
the  farm  product  and  may  by  indirect  methods  dictate  the  rate  of  in- 
terest charged.  The  landed  classes  use  only  25.2  per  cent  of  restrictive 
credit  as  compared  to  74.07  per  cent  for  the  landless. 

A  survey  of  farm  credit  in  North  Carolina  has  recently  been  made 
by  F.  R.  Yoder,  H.  L.  Beardsley,  and  A.  J.  Honeycutt,  representing  the 
North  Carolina  Division  of  Markets,  the  State  College  of  Agriculture 


32 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


and  The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.  This  survey  found 
that  the  average  interest  charged  by  banks  for  short-time  credit 
amounted  to  a  little  more  than  6  per  cent  as  compared  to  as  high  as  34 
per  cent  of  crop-lien  credit  for  the  colored  cropper.  The  average  cost 
of  short-time  credit  for  the  whole  state  was  found  to  be  more  than  25 
per  cent. 

From  this  analysis  of  the  short-time  credit  system  of  the  farmers  it 
can  be  seen  that  croppers  and  tenants  as  well  as  the  landed  classes  are 
bearing  an  unusually  high  "restrictive"  interest  burden  and  this  may  be 
one  of  the  reasons  for  their  failure  to  attain  farm  ownership. 

WEALTH  AND  EQUITY 

The  total  and  itemized  wealth  and  equity  holdings  of  each  farmer 
was  obtained.  His  equity  was  calculated  by  subtracting  his  incum- 
brances and  personal  debts  from  his  total  wealth  and  capital  holdings. 
Tables  LV  to  LX  give  the  facts  in  detail. 


Table  LV — Average  Wealth  and  Equity 
(Coastal  Plain  County) 


Owner 

Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Wealth  per  family 

Wealth  per  person 

Equity  per  family 

Equity  per  person  __ 

$16,025 
3,021 
14,494 
2,750 

$11,639 
1,320 
8,974 
1,019 

$  4,734 
1,066 
3,998 

889 

$4,568 
692.4 

3,908 
597 

$1,111 
227.20 
868 
177.4 
6.5 

$  440 
73.40 
226 
37.68 
28.5 

$  503 
99.40 
352 
72.15 
24.2 

%  219 
43.0 
126 
24.83 
18.75 

Table  LVI — Average  Wealth  and  Equity  Per  Family 
(Piedmont  County) 


Owner 

Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Wealth  per  family 

Wealth  per  person 

Equity  per  family 

Equity  per  person 

$10,423 
2,715 
9,86u 
2,552 

$3,342 

742.50 
3,197 
711 

$3,159 

650 

2,938 

602 

$2,054 

353 

1,673 

288 
2.63 

$521 
115.05 
426 
93.50 
2.5 

$406 

72.45 
294 
50.80 

$251 
46.75 
208 
38.70 
23.5 

$108 
18.58 
36 
6.40 
17.15 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


33 


Table  LYII — Average  Wealth  and  Equity  Per  Family 
(Mountain  County) 


Owner 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

S9,583 

2,220 
9,390 
2,170 

S3, 550 
667.20 

3,401 
664 

{468 
88.40 

452 
88 

1338 

74.30 
308 
67.60 

Table  LVIII — Percentage  Wealth  and  Equity  Held  by  Landed  and  Landless 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

Total 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Landed 

Land- 
less 

Per  cent  of  families 

Per  cent  of  persons. 

Per  cent  of  wealth 

Per  cent  of  equity 

23.2 
24.2 
86.7 
88.7 

76.8 
75.8 
13.3 
11.3 

54.1 
50.7 
94.6 
95.5 

45.9 

49.3 

5.4 

4.5 

68.0 
68.3 
96.5 
96.5 

32.0 

31.7 

3.5 

3.5 

48.4 
47.6 
92.7 
93.9 

51.6 

52.4 

7.3 

6.1 

Table  LIX — Percentage  Wealth  and  Equity  Held  by  White  and  Black 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

59.9 
57.7 
89.5 
91.1 

40.1 

42.3 

10.5 

8.9 

56.8 
51.0 

87.1 
88.7 

43.2 
49.0 
12.9 
11.3 

72.3 
69.7 
92.8 
94.1 

27.1 

30.3 

7.2 

Per  cent  ot  equitv 

5.9 

34 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  LX — Average  Amount  Equity  Held  by  Families  of  Different 

Tenure  Classes 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain* 

Per 
Family 

Per 
Individual 

Per 
Family 

Per 
Individual 

Per 
Family 

Per 
Individual 

10,770 
402 

2,008 
79.60 

4,900 
263 

1,036 

48.50 

5,270 
402 

1,050 

81.45 

Whites 

4,250 
601 

860 
111.70 

4,330 
714 

957 
125 

There  was  too  small  a  number  of  black  farmers  in  the  Mountain  county  to  make  percentages 
trustworthy. 

The  following  conclusions  are  pertinent  in  relation  to  wealth  and 
equity  holding : 

1.  That  while  the  land-owner  families  compose  only  48.4  per  cent  of 
all  the  families  surveyed,  they  own  92.7  per  cent  of  the  entire  wealth  of 
all  families  and  93.9  per  cent  of  all  the  equity. 

2.  That  while  the  white  families '  compose  only  73.3  per  cent  of  all 
the  families  they  control  92.8  per  cent  of  the  total  wealth  and  94.1  per 
cent  of  all  the  equity. 

3.  16.4  per  cent  of  all  landless-men  are  insolvent;  27.4  per  cent  of  all 
negro  tenants,  25.6  per  cent  of  all  white  croppers,  22.1  per  cent  of  all 
negro  croppers  and  3.2  per  cent  of  all  white  tenants  were  insolvent. 
Only  one  land-owner,  a  negro  owner-operator  in  the  Piedmont  county, 
was  insolvent. 

4.  In  the  Coastal  Plain  county  where  the  tenancy  rate  is  highest,  the 
difference  between  the  wealth  and  equity  holdings  of  the  landed  and 
landless  is  greatest  and  in  the  Mountain  county  where  the  tenancy  rate 
is  lowest  the  difference  between  these  classes  in  their  wealth  and  equity 
holdings  is  least, 

5.  The  equity  holdings  per  family  for  the  landed  in  the  Coastal 
Plain  county  is  $10,770.  This  is  the  highest  for  any  section.  The  aver- 
age for  the  landless  families  in  the  Piedmont  is  $263.  This  is  the 
lowest  for  any  section.  The  holdings  for  the  negro  croppers  in  the 
Piedmont  county  is  only  $36.  This  is  an  average  of  $6.40  per  person 
for  this  class. 

6.  13  per  cent  of  all  the  farm  lands  included  in  the  survey  was  being 
farmed  by  insolvent  men. 


WHY  SOME  FARMERS  ARE  LANDLESS 

Why  is  it  that  more  than  117,000  farmers  in  North  Carolina  are 
landless?  ~No  question  is  more  difficult  to  answer.  There  is  one  answer, 
vague  though  it  is,  which  no  one  can  deny  as  correct :    these  men  thus 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


35 


far  have  been  unable  to  climb  the  ladder  of  agricultural  success  to 
ownership.  The  assumption  is  that  a  prospective  farmer  will  begin  as 
a  hired  laborer  or  cropper  on  his  father's  or  some  other  farmer's  land, 
that  he  will  soon  become  a  share  or  cash  tenant  and  will  ultimately 
become  an  owner  of  some  piece  of  land  which  he  can  call  his  own.  If 
the  so-called  "Agricultural  Ladder"  by  means  of  which  men  climb  to 
land  ownership  is  working  according  to  the  method  by  which  the  great 
majority  of  American  farmers  became  land  proprietors  in  the  past 
there  should  be  a  constant  stream  of  farmers  making  the  steady  ascent 
from  laborer  to  cropper,  from  cropper  to  tenant  and  from  tenant  to 
ownership. 

~No  one  will  deny  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between  men  and 
that  many  a  landless  man  has  failed  to  climb  the  ladder  to  ownership 
because  he  was  personally  incompetent.  Even  his  personal  incompetency 
always  has  a  history  and  is  generally  the  result  of  some  adequate  causes. 
The  Tenancy  Commission  could  not  possibly  make  an  analysis  of  the 
personal  characters  of  the  thousand  farmers  it  interviewed.  It  did 
attempt  to  ascertain  something  about  each  one's  family  history  and 
especially  attempted  to  gain  a  concrete  knowledge  of  the  farming  his- 
tory of  each.  Tables  LXI  to  LXIV  give  the  facts  concerning  these 
items. 

Table  LXI — Family  History  of  Tenure  Classes 
(Coastal  Plain  County) 


Per  Cent 

Whose  Father 
Was  Owner 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Tenant 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Cropper 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Landless 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Croppers 

48.4 
40.3 
90.0 
72.9 

2.7 

32.8 
51.9 
10.0 
18.8 

18.7 
69.2 
40.0 
40.0 

10.2 
7.8 

75.0 
30.8 

43.0 
59.7 
10.0 
27.1 

93.7 
100.0 

60.0 
60.0 

40.0 

8.3 

40.0 

Table  LXII — Family  History  of  Tenure  Classes 
(Piedmont  County) 


Per  Cent 

Whose  Father 

Was  Owner 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Tenant 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Cropper 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Landless 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

15.4 
72.5 
84.8 
98.3 

14.7 
7.6 
18.9 

69.2 

27.5 

15.2 

1.7 

55.8 
6.1 

78.4 
83.4 

29.5 
86.3 
2.7 
16.6 

69.2 

27.5 

15.2 

1.7 

85.3 

92.4 

81.1 

100.0 

36 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  LXIII — Family  History  of  Tenure  Classes 
(Mountain  County) 


Per  Cent 

Whose  Father 

Was  Owner 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Tenant 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Cropper 

Per  Cent 
Whose  Father 
Was  Landless 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

57.9 
50.8 
82.7 
94.4 

36.8 

47.8 

16.7 

2.8 

5.3 
1.4 

.6 
2.8 

42.1 

49.2 

17.3 

5.6 

From  the  Tables  LXI  to  LXIII  it  is  apparent : 

1.  That  the  tenure  status  of  a  person's  father  has  considerable  to  do 
with  the  tenure  status  of  the  person  himself.  The  present  land-owners 
are  sons  of  land-owners  in  81  per  cent  of  the  cases,  while  landless  men 
are  sons  of  land-owners  in  only  30  per  cent  of  the  cases. 

2.  Only  19  per  cent  of  the  land-owners  included  in  the  territory  sur- 
veyed arose  to  ownership  out  of  landless  families.  Seventy  per  cent  of 
the  landless  farmers  are  sons  of  landless  farmers.  These  facts  make  it 
apparent  that  ownership  on  the  part  of  the  father  is  a  great  assistance 
to  ownership  on  the  part  of  the  son  and  landlessness  on  the  part  of  the 
father  is  a  barrier  difficult  for  the  son  to  surmount. 

3.  A  smaller  per  cent  of  the  negroes  than  of  the  whites,  both  landed 
and  landless,  have  come  from  owner  families.  In  fact  less  than  10  per 
cent  of  all  the  negro  farmers  are  sons  of  land-owning  farmers.  In  spite 
of  the  fact  that  19.2  per  cent  of  all  the  negroes  are  land-owners. 

A  few  generations  ago  a  land-owner  practically  always  gained  owner- 
ship by  climbing  the  agricultural  ladder.  The  ascent  was  easy  in  those 
days  because  of  the  low  price  of  land.  The  climb  has  become  more  and 
more  difficult  as  the  prices  of  the  land  have  increased. 

The  result  is  that  fewer  men  successfully  make  the  climb.  They 
either  remain  at  the  bottom  as  croppers  or  get  stalled  in  the  tenant  stage. 
Oftentimes  they  rise  to  tenancy  and  then  slip  back  to  cropper.  Some- 
times they  even  attain  ownership  and  then  slip  back  to  one  of  the  lower 
tenure  types. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  ascent  to  ownership  is  difficult,  59 
per  cent  of  all  white  farmers  surveyed  and  almost  20  per  cent  of  all 
negro  farmers  surveyed  are  owners  of  land.  An  attempt  was  made  to 
discover  how  these  men  obtained  ownership  of  farms.  Table  LXIY 
gives  the  facts  concerning  the  tenure  history  of  the  various  tenure 
classes. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


37 


Table  LXIV  (a) — Per  cent  Who  Have  Attained  Different  Tenure  Statuses 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

All  Surveyed 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Owners  who  have  been 
Croppers _ 

Owners  who  have  been 
Tenants 

Tenants  who  have  been 

34.9 
46.1 
59.7 
10.4 

70.0 
50.0 
85.6 
7.15 
5.38 
.89 

30.7 

50.4 

47.5 

5.0 

7.0.5 
75.0 

72.7 

8.57 

24.3 
29.4 
56.3 
9.86 
10.5 
10.5 

27.8 

38.4 

56.1 

9.3 

3.67 

3.23 

65.8 
65.8 
75.0 

2.56 
15.0 

2.56 

32.6 
41.0 
61.6 

Tenants  who  have  been 
Owners .--  . 

Croppers  who  have  been 

8.1 

7.82 

Croppers  who  have  been 

3.07 

From  Table  LXIV(a)  the  following  conclusions  appear: 

1.  Less  than  50  per  cent  of  the  present  land-owners  had  ever  been 
landless.     The  remainder  started  farming  with  ownership  of  land. 

2.  Less  than  40  per  cent  of  the  present  white  owners  were  ever  land- 
less farmers. 

3.  About  two-thirds  of  the  present  negro  farm  owners  started  farming 
without  ownership  of  land. 

4.  Only  27.8  per  cent  of  the  present  white  owners  started  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  agricultural  ladder,  i.  e.,  as  croppers;  65.8  per  cent  of  the 
present  negro  owners  started  as  croppers. 

5.  61.6  per  cent  of  the  present  tenant  farmers  started  as  croppers. 
The  remainder  started  either  as  tenants  or  started  as  owners  and 
dropped  into  the  tenant  class. 

6.  8.1  per  cent  of  the  present  tenants  had  at  one  time  attained  owner- 
ship and  then  slipped  into  tenancy.  This  had  been  the  experience  of  a 
greater  per  cent  of  the  whites  than  of  the  negroes. 

7.  7.8  per  cent  of  the  croppers  had  at  one  time  been  tenants  and  had 
dropped  into  the  cropper  class.  This  had  been  the  experience  of  a  much 
larger  per  cent  of  negroes  (viz. :  15  per  cent)  than  of  the  whites. 

8.  3.07  per  cent  of  the  present  cropper-farmers  had  at  one  time  been 
owners. 

9.  It  is  not  easy  to  climb  this  agricultural  ladder  from  landlessness 
to  ownership,  nor  has  a  very  large  per  cent  of  the  present  land-owners 
obtained  their  ownership  by  that  method  alone. 

Men  who  now  own  farms  have  gained  their  proprietorship  by  means 
of  purchases,  gifts,  and  inheritance.     Even  their  purchases  were  often 
made  by  security  which  some  relative  furnished  or  by  aid  through  other 
6 


38 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


financial  means  than  straight-out  gifts.  Land  purchases  are  here  con- 
sidered, however,  in  the  following  table,  as  if  they  were  made  solely  by 
means  of  assets  which  the  purchaser  had  made  by  tenant  and  cropper 
farming  or  had  been  accumulated  in  other  occupations.  An  attempt 
was  made  to  discover  the  methods  by  which  land-owners  had  come  into 
ownership  in  Table  LXIV(b). 

Table  LXIV  (b) — Per  cent  of  Land  Wealth  Acquired  by  Purchase  and  by 
Gift,  Inheritance,  and  Marriage* 


Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

Area 
Sur- 
veyed 

Operator 
Landlord 

Owner 
Operator 

Operator 
Landlord 

Owner 
Operator 

Operator 
Landlord 

Owner 
Operator 

Land 
Owners 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

White 

Purchase. . 

Gift,  inheri- 
tance and 
marriage- 

22.5 
77.5 

32.0 
68.0 

48.0 
52.0 

19.6 
80.4 

74.7 
25.3 

80.4 
19.6 

54.4 
35.6 

87.5 
12.5 

26.2 
73.8 

36.3 
63.7 

41.0 
59.0 

*Based  on  values  at  time  of  acquirement. 


From  Table  LXIV  it  is  apparent  that  the  majority  of  land-ownership 
was  not  gained  by  individual  effort  in  farming.  Among  the  whites  con- 
siderably more  than  one-half  of  their  present  wealth  was  given  to  them. 
In  the  case  of  the  negro  land-owners  more  than  one-third  of  their 
wealth  was  given  to  them.  This  is  not  said  by  way  of  disparagement 
to  these  worthy  citizens  who  own  their  farms,  but  rather  to  prove  that 
even  where  men  have  reached  the  stage  of  ownership  they  did  not  al- 
ways do  it  unassisted.  It  would  seem  therefore  that  we  are  not  justified 
in  expecting  the  present  tenants  and  croppers  to  gain  ownership  without 
help.  As  a  matter  of  fact  only  19.7  per  cent  of  the  436  white  owners 
claimed  to  have  gained  ownership  without  assistance,  either  money  or 
other  property  gifts  and  inheritance.  A  total  of  270  of  these  owners 
or  61.9  per  cent  of  them  never  were  either  tenants  or  croppers.  In  the 
Mountain  county  70.6  per  cent  of  the  present  owners  started  farming  as 
owners.  Furthermore,  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  fact  that 
most  men  inherited  their  wealth  at  about  the  age  of  thirty.  At  that 
time  they  got  the  deed  to  their  land  the  value  of  which  has  since  greatly 
increased.  Inheritances  or  gifts  at  the  time  they  were  received  consti- 
tuted a  much  greater  percentage  of  their  wealth-holding  than  they  do 
at  the  present. 

Are  the  men  who  are  now  tenants  and  croppers  ever  going  to  be  land- 
owners ?  Needless  to  say  they  will  not  if  they  are  expected  to  gain  owner- 
ship through  methods  by  which  the  majority  of  present  landholders 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions  39 

gained  ownership,  namely,  by  inheritance  and  gifts.  Most  of  them  must 
make  the  climb  by  successful  farming  or  not  at  all.  Of  the  white  owners 
surveyed,  166  had  successfully  made  the  climb  and  from  them  some  sug- 
gestions can  be  gotten  regarding  the  possibilities  of  the  now  landless 
group  doing  the  same  thing.  The  land-owners  who  have  fought  their 
own  way  became  croppers  at  the  average  age  of  22.4  years.  They  made 
the  transfer  to  tenant-farming  at  the  average  age  of  24.5  years,  and 
became  owners  at  the  average  age  of  36.2  years.  They  climbed  the 
ladder  of  agricultural  success  to  some  degree  of  ownership  in  the  aver- 
age of  13.8  year.  The  average  age  of  the  present  cropper  group  is  now 
36.6  years.  They  have  been  farming  for  an  average  of  15.2  years  and 
are  still  landless.  The  average  age  of  the  present  tenant  group  is  38.2 
years.  They  have  been  tenants  for  8.5  years  and  have  been  farming 
for  15.8  years  and  are  still  landless.  Both  of  these  groups  have  passed 
the  average  age  at  which  the  present  owners  first  attained  ownership. 
Some  of  these  men  will  undoubtedly  some  day  become  owners.  The 
great  majority  of  them  never  will  unless  they  receive  assistance  from 
some  source.  Even  those  who  will  reach  ownership  will  do  so  at  a  con- 
siderably later  age  than  did  the  present  group  of  owners.  Land  is 
higher  priced  now  than  then  and  it  will  therefore  take  the  present  land- 
less men  longer  to  accumulate  enough  capital  to  make  the  initial  pay- 
ment on  a  farm. 

The  number  of  tenants  and  croppers  are  increasing  every  year.  A 
larger  and  larger  percentage  of  farm  land  is  being  farmed  by  these 
landless  farmers.  Each  year  sees  a  higher  per  cent  of  all  farm  values 
under  the  direction  of  these  men.  North  Carolina  can  not  look  with 
complacency  on  these  facts.  The  late  Governor  Bickett  said  in  his  in- 
augural address  "that  he  would  neither  rest  nor  allow  the  State  to  rest 
until  every  honest,  industrious,  and  frugal  man  who  tills  the  soil  has  a 
chance  to  own  it."  This  is  but  justice  to  these  men.  He  further  said, 
"Every  consideration  of  progress  and  safety  urges  us  to  employ  all  wise 
and  just  measures  to  get  the  lands  into  the  hands  of  the  many."  This 
is  a  policy  of  wisdom  and  statesmanship  on  the  part  of  the  State. 

THE  HOMES 

Very  careful  and  detailed  studies  were  made  of  each  of  the  1,014  farm 
residences.  The  number  of  rooms  in  each  house  and  the  use  of  that 
room  space  was  ascertained.  Housing  experts  have  generally  accepted 
standards  of  minimum  comfort  to  be  one  and  one-half  rooms  per  person 
and  one  and  one-half  persons  per  bedroom.  This  means  that  a  normal 
house  should  include  three  rooms  for  each  two  persons  and  two  bed- 
rooms for  each  three  persons.  Tables  LXV  to  LXXII  give  the  in- 
formation for  the  farm  homes  surveyed. 


40 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  LXV — Average  Number  of  Rooms  Per  Home 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain... 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

5.64 
5.67 
5.02 

3.8 
5.0 

4.55 
4.67 
4.06 

3.8 
3.98 

4.2 
4.1 
3.64 

4.0 
4.02 

4.12 
3.54 
2.88 

3.42 
3.0 

4.58 
4.77 
4.03 

3.52 
3.82 

Total 

5.42 

4.46 

3.95 

3.95 

3.98 

4.02 

3.62 

3.33 

4.38 

3.72 

Table  LXVI — Average  Number  of  Persons  Per  Room 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont       .     - 
Mountain 

.93 

.68 
.87 

2.3 
.90 

.98 
1.04 
1.31 

1.74 
1.46 

1.16 
1.11 
1.41 

1.5 
1.45 

1.19 
1.52 
1.59 

1.49 
1.9 

1.09 
.946 
1.24 

1.53 
1.51 

Total 

.825 

1.45 

1.19 

1.5 

1.24 

1.46 

1.34 

1.57 

1.11 

1.52 

Table  LXVII — Average  Number  of  Persons  Per  Bedroom 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

1.63 
1.23 
1.55 

2.59 
1.59 

1.62 

1.6 

2.44 

2.75 
2.02 

1.89 
1.47 
2.59 

2.15 
2.16 

1.91 
2.19 
2.74 

2.28 
3.0 

1.8 

1.49 

2.26 

2.3 
2.24 

Total 

1.47 

1.87 

2.06 

2.1 

1.99 

2.16 

2.16 

2.44 

1.89 

2.27 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


41 


Table  LXVIII — Average  Persons  Per  Bed 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

1.16 
.82 
.92 

1.69 
.93 

1.06 

1.1 

1.25 

1.27 
1.39 

1.42 
1.24 
1.53 

1.83 
1.5 

1.44 
1.49 
1.48 

1.52 

1.62 

Mountain 

Total 

.95 

1.29 

1.19 

1.37 

1.42 

1.55 

1.46 

An  average  landless  farmer  had  3.74  rooms  in  his  house  as  compared 
with  4.66  for  the  owners.  The  average  white  farmer  had  4.38  rooms  in 
his  house  as  compared  to  3.72  for  a  negro  farmer.  The  homes  of  land- 
less men  had  1.38  persons  per  room  as  compared  to  1.07  for  the  owner 
homes.  The  white  homes  had  1.11  persons  per  bed  as  compared  to  1.52 
for  the  negro  homes.  The  landless  homes  had  216  persons  for  each  100 
bedrooms,  and  149  persons  for  each  100  bedrooms  and  112  persons  for 
each  100  beds  in  the  homes  of  landowners. 

The  white  homes  had  189  persons  for  each  100  bedrooms  and  121  per- 
sons for  each  100  beds  as  compared  to  227  persons  for  each  100  bed- 
rooms and  153  persons  for  each  100  beds  in  the  negro  homes.  All  the 
homes  surveyed  had  199  persons  for  each  100  bedrooms  and  128  persons 
for  each  100  beds. 


Table  LXIX — A  Classification  of  the  Homes  According  to  the  Xumber 

of  Rooms 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

Whites 

Negroes 

All  Surveyed 

Per  cent  1  room 

1.4 

2.5 

2.2 

1.4 

2.0 

Per  cent  2  rooms 

9.2 

15.1 

12.2 

12.5 

12.2 

Per  cent  3  rooms... 

17.6 

31.5 

20.5 

35.9 

24.7 

Per  cent  4  rooms 

24.2 

24.4 

22.4 

29.2 

24.4 

Per  cent  5  rooms 

13.1 

14.5 

15.2 

10.3 

13.8 

Per  cent  6  rooms.  __ 

19.2 

7.4 

15.8 

6.1 

13.1 

Per  cent  over  6  rooms 

15.3 

4.6 

11.7 

4.6 

9.8 

Table  LXIX  shows  that  17.6  per  cent  of  the  landless  farmers  are 
living  in  homes  of  one  and  two  rooms  as  compared  to  10.6  per  cent  for 
the  owners.  14.4  per  cent  for  all  whites  and  13.9  per  cent  for  all  negroes 
lived  in  one-  and  two-room  houses.  14.2  per  cent  of  all  families  lived 
in  houses  with  less  than  three  rooms.  ' 


42 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Large  families  housed  in  small  homes  often  means  that  the  family 
must  eat  in  the  kitchen,  sleep  in  the  sitting  room  or  in  other  ways  mix 
household  functions. 

Table  LXX — Percentage  of  Families  With  Separate  Sitting-Rooms 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain... 

25.0 
25.8 
23.2 

60.0 
33.3 

40.0 
7.5 
11.4 

20.0 

16.9 

7.2 
3.0 

5.2 

2.7 

17.9 
11.1 
13.6 

4.4 
2.7 

12.7 

Total 

24.6 

27.3 

12.6 

2.3 

11.7 

3.75 

2.75 

2.04 

17.8 

3.5 

Table  LXXI — Percentage  of  Homes  With  Separate  Dining-Rooms 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain... 
Mountain 

68.7 
74.1 
65.1 

60.0 
33.3 

60.0 
44.2 
46.9 

20.0 
05.5 

20.8 
80.0 
45.1 

14.1 
19.7 

34.5 
07.7 
21.1 

20.5 
11.8 

40.4 
57.8 
48.4 

21.3 
14.5 

Total 

69.0 

45.5 

47.5 

6.97 

42.5 

18.75 

26.6 

18.38 

48.4 

17.4 

Table  LXXII — Percentage  of  Homes  With  Separate  Parlors 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

22.9 
34.5 
11.6 

60.0 

10.0 
13.9 
6.8 

20.0 
2.6 

5.2 
5.0 

4.2 

7.1 
3.0 

6.9 
7.7 
2.6 

.91 

9.9 
12.9 
10.6 

4.4 
2.1 

Total. 

22.3 

27.3 

9.2 

4.65 

4.8 

3.75 

5.5 

.68 

10.7 

•     3.7 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


43 


Fifty-two  per  cent  of  the  490  land-owners  had  dining  rooms  separate 
from  other  rooms  as  compared  to  28.8  per  cent  for  the  524  landless. 
Only  48.4  per  cent  of  the  white  families  and  17.8  per  cent  of  the  negro 
families  had  dining  rooms  separate  from  other  rooms.  The  percentage 
for  all  families  surveyed  was  39. 

Ten  and  four-tenths  per  cent  of  the  land-owners  had  parlors  separate 
from  other  rooms  as  compared  to  3.6  per  cent  for  the  landless.  Only 
10.6  per  cent  of  all  whites  and  3.2  per  cent  of  all  negroes  had  separate 
parlors.     Only  8.7  per  cent  of  all  houses  surveyed  had  parlors. 

Sixteen  and  a  half  per  cent  of  all  land-owners  had  family  gathering 
rooms  separate  from  other  rooms  as  compared  with  5.9  per  cent  for  all 
landless.  Only  13.6  per  cent  of  all  whites,  and  3.6  per  cent  of  all 
negroes  were  provided  with  such  assembling  rooms. 

Bathtubs,  indoor  toilets,  running  water  in  these  modern  days,  often 
make  a  home.  The  following  Tables  LXXIII(a)  through  LXXV 
give  the  percentages  of  homes  of  the  various  classes  of  farmers  which 
have  these  conveniences.  , 

Table  LXXIII  (a) — Percentage  of  Homes  With  Bath-Tubs,  Indoor  Toilets, 

Running  Water,  and  Clothes  Closets 

(For  the  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

8.3 
6.6 
6.6 
2.3 

5.0 

2.4 

1.5 

2.0 

14.0- 

1.7 
10.2 

5.0 

40.0 

5.0 

13.0 

6.5 

Table  LXXIII  (b)- 


-Percentages  of  Homes  With  Bath-Tubs,  Indoor  Toilets, 
Running  Water,  and  Clothes  Closets 
(For  the  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

3.4 

1.7 

1.7 

38.0 

1.05 
.52 
1.05 
22.1 

1.7 
6.5 

10.5 
10.5 

10.5 

42.0 

10.5 

44 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  LXXIV — Percentages  of  Homes  With  Bath-Tubs,  Indoor  Toilets, 

Running  Water,  and  Clothes  Closets 

(For  the  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

1.5 

.62 

1.23 

1.85 

13.0 

.588 

.588 

.882 

8.7 

5.63 

2.94 

7.35 

Table  LXXV — Percentages  of  Homes  With  Bath-Tubs,  Indoor  Toilets, 

Running  Water,  and  Clothes  Closets 

(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

•    Whites 

Blacks 

Total 

1.84 

1.24 

1.66 

13.01 

1.23 

.82 

1.23 

12.9 

.885 

.591 

1.91 

8.4 

.885 

Clothes  Closets.-  _ 

4.64 

10.63 

No  farm  tenant  has  a  bath-tub  or  an  indoor  toilet.  No  negro  farmer 
has  a  bath-tub,  an  indoor  toilet,  or  running  water.  Less  than  two  per 
cent  of  the  land-owners  have  either  of  these  three  conveniences. 

Quite  an  elaborate  analysis  of  home  equipment  and  home  conveniences 
was  made.    Tables  LXXYI  to  LXXIX  present  the  finding. 


Table  LXXVI — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Modern  Conveniences 
(For  the  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

11.7 
3.5 

7.2 

5.2 
1.7 

7.2 

10.2 
2.1 
91.8 

100.0 

5.0 
95.0 

Per  cent  have  sewing  machines 

100.0 

80.8 

86.0 

95.0 

69.6 

10.2 
12.5 
16.6 
83.5 

20.0 
40.0 

1.3 
1.3 

2.6 
39.0 

Per  cent  have  telephones 

Per  cent  have  refrigerators 

Per  cent  have  rugs _   _ 

5.0 
5.0 
25.0 

20.0 

14.3 

1.2 

1.2 

34.6 

9.0 
10.0 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


45 


Table  LXXVII — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Modern  Conveniences 
(For  the  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

5.9 

Per  cent  have  sewing  machines 

98.5 

100.0 

96.1 

94.6 

87.5 

69.8 

69.3 

37.2 

41.5 

6.9 

67.2 

26.6 

7.5 
5.0 
12.5 

Per  cent  have  rugs  - 

33.3 

41.7 

8.3 

9.1 

3.3 

Table  LXXVIII — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Modern  Conveniences 
(For  the  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owners 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

3.7 

0.6 

2.7 

1.4 
4.3 
84.0 

5.2 

86.3 

66.2 

50.0 

2.8 

1.4 

1.4 

27.6 

0.6 
0.6 

17.3 

2.8 

2.6 

Table  LXXIX- 


-Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Modem  Conveniences 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Land 
Owners 

Landless 

White 

Black 

Total 

Per  cent  other  heat  than  fireplace 

1.2 

1.4 

1.0 

91.4 

5.2 

1.3 

0.19 

71.6 

2.7 

2.7 

0.82 

84.8 

2.7 

3.1 
1.4 

0.6 

Per  cent  have  sewing  machines. .. 

72.4 

80.7 

Per  cent  have  kitchen  sinks 

Per  cent  have  telephones 

1.86 
11.6 

3.9 
35.6 

0.19 
1.14 
0.97 
15.2 

1.2 

8.1 

2.5 

30.2 

0.36 
0.36 

0.98 

9.0 

1.87 

Per  cent  have  rugs 

10.6 

24.6 

y 


46 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


It  is  significant  to  note  that  96.9  per  cent  of  all  the  homes  are  heated 
by  fireplaces,  98,6  per  cent  are  lighted  by  lamps,  99.4  per  cent  of  the 
washing  is  done  by  tubs  and  wash-boards,  and  19.3  per  cent  do  all 
sewing  by  hand.  Not  one  farm  home  has  a  vacuum  cleaner,  99.02  per 
cent  have  no  kitchen  sinks,  91  per  cent  have  no  telephones,  98.13  per 
cent  have  no  refrigerators  and  75.4  per  cent  of  the  families  live  on  bare 
wood  floors. 

Screens  at  the  windows  and  doors  are  not  only  home  conveniences  but 
health  facilities  in  that  they  keep  flies  and  mosquitoes  out  of  the  house. 
Tables  LXXX  and  LXXXI  give  the  facts  about  screening. 

Table  LXXX — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  i\To  Screens 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

33.4 
48.2 
44.8 

80.0 
50.0 

60.0 
68.3 
75.3 

40.0 
86.8 

68.8 
70.0 
83.2 

85.6 
92.5 

43.2 
92.3 
94.7 

95.5 
94.2 

52.2 
64.3 
73.0 

91.9 
89.7 

Total 

42.9 

63.7 

72.0 

81.4 

74.5 

91.3 

67.0 

95.3 

64.9 

90.8 

Table  LXXXI — Per  cent  of  Homes  Only  Partly  Screened 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

20.8 
5.2 
10.2 

20.0 
50.0 

15.0 
5.1 

40.0 
7.9 

2.6 

22.5 

2.7 

7.15 
4.5 

25.8 
7.7 

.9 
2.9 

14.8 
8.9 
2.6 

3.7 
6.9 

Total 

11.4 

36.4 

2.68 

11.6 

6.92 

5.1 

14.7 

1.36 

•7.6 

5.3 

Tables  LXXX  and  LXXXI  show  that  81.3  per  cent  of  the  homes  of 
landless  farmers  have  no  screens  as  compared  to  62.2  per  cent  for  the 
homes  of  the  land-owners.  64.9  per  cent  of  the  homes  of  the  whites  and 
90.8  per  cent  of  the  homes  of  the  negroes  have  no  screens.  Only  30.4 
per  cent  of  the  land-owners,  12.0  of  the  landless,  27.5  per  cent  of  the 
whites,  3.9  per  cent  of  the  negroes  and  20.9  per  cent  of  all  surveyed  had 
their  houses  completely  screened. 

Information  was  gathered  on  the  number  of  windows  and  their  con- 
ditions.    Tables  LXXXII  and  LXXXIII  present  the  findings. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


47 


Table  LXXXII — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Broken  Window-Lights 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain ... 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

16.66 

34.5 

15.9 

20.0 
16.6 

30.0 
20.2 
12.4 

40.0 
55.2 

28.5 
50.0 
33.8 

64.2 
65.2 

34.5 
30.9 
26.3 

56.2 
68.6 

27.5 
31.5 
19.1 

55.2 
61.3 

Total 

22.23 

18.2 

16.1 

53.5 

35.05 

65.0 

31.2 

59.15 

24.7 

58.3 

Table  LXXXIII — Average  Number  of  Windoiv  Frames  Per  Home 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain... 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

9.5 
10.2 
8.7 

10.6 

7.84 

7.7 
7.7 
6.17 

5.4 
5.76 

7.18 
6.82 
5.14 

5.85 
5.77 

7.35 

5.0 

3.9 

5.4 
3.83 

7.83 
5.39 
6.2 

5.64 
5.39 

Total 

9.41 

9.1 

6.75 

5.48 

6.35 

5.78 

5.87 

5.2 

7.15 

5.5 

Tables  LXXXII  and  LXXXIII  show  that  the  average  land-owner 
has  7.66  window  frames  in  his  home  as  compared  to  5.79  for  the  land- 
less, 7.15  for  the  whites,  5.5  for  the  negroes,  and  6.68  for  all  1,014  farm 
homes  surveyed.  21.6  per  cent  of  the  homes  of  the  land-owners,  45.6  per 
cent  of  the  homes  of  the  landless,  24.7  per  cent  of  the  homes  of  white 
farmers,  58.3  per  cent  of  the  negroes  and  34.1  per  cent  of  all  1,014 
homes  surveyed  had  broken  panes. 

Tables  LXXXIV  through  LXXXVII  give  the  per  cent  of  farm 
homes  with  interior  walls  covered  with  tar  paper,  newspapers,  plastering 
and  ceiling. 

Table  LXXXIV — Per  cent  of  Farm  Homes  With  Tar-Papered  Walls 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Owner 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

5.0 

0.5 

1.5 

0.68 

Mountain 

0.6 

5.0 

0.41 

Total 

.38 

1.25 

1.83 

.054 

.35 

48 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  LXXXV — Per  cent  of  Farm  Homes  With  Neivspapered  Walls 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Owner 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain.. _ 

4.0 

40.0 

5.0 
1.26 
17.0 

20.0 

17.0 
5.0 
17.0 

28.0 
1.5 

7.0 

21.0 

10.0 
1.58 
10.4 

22.8 
2.07 

Mountain 

5.8 

24.0 

Total 

3.4 

18.2 

11.5 

2.33 

14.35 

6.25 

11.9 

17.7 

10.35 

11.8 

Table  LXXXVI — Per  cent  of  Farm  Homes  With  Plastered  Walls 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Owner 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

56.0 

20.0 

25.0 
3.8 
1.8 

35.0 

21.0 
1.5 

19.0 

17.0 
3.0 

35.0 

1.58 
10.4 

17.0 
1.36 

Total 

15.4 

9.1 

4.2 

14.35 

5.0 

10.1 

13.6 

10.35 

8.71 

Table  LXXXVII — Per  cent  of  Farm  Homes  With  Ceiled  Walls 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Owner 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

B.ack 

White 

B.ack 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

60.0 
59.0 
65.0 

80.0 

60.0 
38.0 
49.5 

80.0 
29.0 

62.0 
14.0 

64.0 
41.0 

62.0 
54.0 
34.0 

46.0 
15.0 

62.2 
41.1 
46.5 

58.0 
29.6 

Total 

61.7 

36.3 

46.4 

35.0 

29.3 

45.0 

51.4 

38.8 

46.5 

39.0 

Tables  LXXXIV  to  LXXXVII  show  that  57  out  of  every  thousand 
landless  farmers'  homes  are  covered  with  tar  paper,  135  with  news- 
papers, 118  with  plaster  and  388  are  ceiled.  In  the  land-owners'  homes 
24  out  of  every  thousand  are  covered  with  tar-paper,  80  are  covered 
with  newspapers,  80  are  plastered  and  508  are  ceiled.  The  interior 
finish  of  the  farm-owner  homes  is  distinctly  superior  to  that  of  the 
tenant  homes. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


49 


Tables  LXXXVIII  through  XC  give  the  per  cent  of  homes  without 
porches,  per  cent  with  only  one  porch  and  the  average  number  of 
porches  per  home. 

Table  LXXXVIII — Per  cent  of  Homes  Which  Have  No  Porches 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

2.0 

10.3 

7.3 

33.3 

95.5 
62.05 
8.0 

60.0 
10.5 

18.0 
22.4 
12.6 

14.1 
37.9 

7.0 
38.5 
13.1 

33.9 
55.0 

14.5 
36.3 

9.4 

31.3 
34.5 

Total 

4.57 

18.2 

28.0 

16.3 

17.0 

33.8 

12.8 

38.8 

27.8 

33.0 

Table  LXXXIX — Per  cent  of  Farm  Homes  Which  Have  Only  One  Porch 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont .. 

Mountain 

8.3 
13.8 
43.5 

20.0 
50.0 

25.0 

5.7 

51.8 

60.5 

35.0 
35.0 
61.9 

64.2 
42.4 

46.5 
61.5 
65.8 

45.5 
45.0 

30.6 
17.9 
53.8 

45.8 
48.3 

Total 

24.0 

36.4 

35.3 

53.4 

45.2 

46.3 

55.0 

45.5 

38.1 

46.4 

Table  XC — Average  Number  of  Porches  Per  Home 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain... 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

1.75 
1.72 
1.48 

2.0 
1.17 

.705 
1.4 
1.255 

0.8 
1.13 

1.28 

1.2 

1.12 

1.07 
.88 

1.36 
.69 
1.8 

.87 
.45 

1.36 
1.44 
1.29 

.93 

.86 

Total 

1.67 

1.55 

1.31 

1.09 

1.21 

.91 

1.18 

.78 

1.35 

.89 

Tables  LXXXVIII  to  XC  show  that  for  every  one  hundred  landless 
homes  there  is  a  total  of  104  porches  as  compared  to  142  porches  for 
every  100  land-owner  homes.  The  land-owners  have  porches  on  80.8 
per  cent  of  the  houses  as  compared  to  75.2  per  cent  for  those  of  the 


50 


jNTorth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


landless  farmers.  The  houses  of  the  landless  class  have  only  one  porch 
per  house  in  47.7  per  cent  of  the  cases  as  compared  to  32.8  per  cent  in 
the  case  of  the  owners.  For  all  homes  surveyed,  22.2  per  cent  have  no 
porches,  the  landless  having  no  porches  in  24.8  per  cent  of  the  cases  and 
the  land-owners  having  no  porches  in  19.2  per  cent  of  the  cases. 

Tables  XCI  and  XCII  give  the  per  cent  of  farm  homes  which  have 
basements  and  sleeping  porches.     They  are  self-explanatory. 

Table  XCI — Per  cent  of  Homes  Which  Have  Basements 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

2.1 
10.3 

8.70 

.49 
3.16 
5.0 

4.55 

2.07 

Mountain 

4.3 

4.24 

2.64 

Total 

7.43 

2.68 

1.6 

3.75 

.92 

3.27 

1.7 

Table  XCII — Per  cent  of  Farm  Homes  Which  Have  Sleeping  Porsches 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

Total 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

6.3 

1.725 

4.35 

31.5 

2.64 

2.6 

5.9 
.53 
1.17 

.69 

.62 

Total 

4.0 

3.7 

2.33 

1.06 

2.32 

.36 

HEALTH  AND  SANITATION 

A  great  many  facts  were  ascertained  about  health  and  sanitation. 
Specific  information  was  gotten  concerning  contacts  with  doctors;  ex- 
penditure for  services  of  the  physician,  drugs  and  patent  medicine; 
medical  attendance  on  mother  at  time  of  childbirth;  percentage  of  still 
births;  vaccination  for  smallpox;  inoculation  for  typhoid;  possibilities 
of  contamination  of  the  water  supply;  and  disposal  of  the  human  ex- 
creta, garbage,  and  dishwater. 

Tables  XCIV  to  XCIX  give  the  contact  of  the  families  with  doctors. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


51 


Table  XCIV — Per  cent  of  Families  Had  a  Doctor  Call  on  Them  the 

Previous  Year 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

83.3 
41.5 
53.6 

80.0 
33.3 

65.0 
40.5 
49.4 

80.0 
31.6 

76.7 
41.5 
50.8 

64.2 
42.5 

84.6 
84.6 
63.2 

54.9 

57.7 

Total 

57.7 

54.6 

47.9 

37.2 

59.7 

46.3 

77.1 

55.1 

Table  XCV — Per  cent  of  Families  Called  at  Doctor's  Office  the  Previous  Year 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain - 

Piedmont .  .  

Mountain...       

73.0 

8.6 

34.8 

60.0 

50.0 

4.5 

31.4 

80.0 
5.3 

58.5 
12.5 
25.3 

28.5 
21.2 

55.0 
31.0 
39.5 

57.3 
0.6 

Total 

37.0 

27.3 

24.9 

14.0 

36.2 

22.5 

46.8 

44.9 

Table  XCVI — Average  Doctor  Calls  Per  Family  for  the  Past  Year 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

7.3 
3.0 
2.9 

5.0 

1.5 

2.9 
1.3 
3.5 

1.0 
0.71 

3.3 

1.55 

1.36 

1.3 
1.6 

4.7 
2.8 
3.9 

1.4 

Piedmont . 

Mountain 

2.0 

Total 

4.15 

3.1 

2.78 

.745 

2.21 

1.65 

4.29 

1.53 

52 


Xorth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  XCVII — Average  Trips  to  Doctor  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

4.0 

.35 

1.8 

3.8 

2.3 

.16 
1.7 

3.2 
.16 

2.8 
.45 
1.27 

0.86 
.45 

3.0 

.77 
.47 

1.91 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

.21 

Total 

1.91 

1.73 

1.34 

.51 

1.71 

5.52 

1.85 

1.50 

Table  XCVIII — Total  Contacts  With  Doctor  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

11.3 
11.6 

4.7 

8.8 
1.5 

5.2 

1.46 

5.2 

4.2 

.87 

6.1 

1.97 

2.63 

2.16 
2.05 

7.7 

3.57 

4.37 

3.31 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

2.21 

Total 

6.05 

4.8 

4.06 

1.26 

3.39 

2.09 

6.13 

3.2 

Table  XCIX — Average  Distance  to  Doctor 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

3.7 
8.6 
3.7 

2.2 
7.8 

2.6 
8.4 
4.5 

1.0 
7.5 

4.3 
8.8 
4.5 

3.5 

8.7 

3.3 

8.15 

4.5 

3.5 

8.2 

Total 

5.34 

5.27 

5.5 

6.77 

5.33 

.7.77 

4.28 

4.54 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


53 


It  may  be  pointed  out  in  summarizing  the  Tables  XCIY  to  XCIX 
that  50.5  per  cent  of  the  land-owners  had  a  doctor  call  on  them  the 
preceding  year  as  compared  to  59.8  per  cent  for  the  landless,  57.7  per 
cent  for  the  whites,  49.8  per  cent  for  the  negroes  and  54.8  per  cent  for 
all  surveyed.  In  addition  to  home  visits  by  the  doctor,  28.2  per  cent  of 
the  land-owners  made  trips  to  the  doctor's  office  as  compared  with  38.7 
per  cent  for  the  landless,  33.8  per  cent  for  the  whites,  33.1  per  cent  for 
the  negroes,  and  33.2  per  cent  for  all  surveyed.  This  would  seem  to 
indicate  a  larger  percentage  of  sickness  in  the  homes  of  the  landless  than 
in  the  homes  of  the  land-owners. 

Home  calls  by  the  doctors  and  visits  to  the  doctor's  office  should  be 
considered  in  conjunction  with  each  other.  The  land-owner  families 
had  the  doctor  call  on  them  an  average  of  3.09  times  per  year  and  called 
at  his  office  1.24  times  per  year  making  a  total  of  4.33  contacts  with  the 
doctor  per  family  per  year.  The  landless  families  had  the  doctor  call 
on  them  an  average  of  2.36  times  per  year  and  called  at  his  office  1.5 
times  per  year  making  a  total  of  3.86  contacts  with  the  doctor  per 
family  per  year.  It  would  seem  that  although  the  landless  families  are 
sick  more  often  than  the  families  of  land-owners,  that  they  get  less 
medical  attention  than  the  land-owners. 

The  same  differences  were  found  to  be  true  between  the  whites  and 
negroes,  but  the  extreme  poverty  of  the  negroes  makes  it  inadvisable  to 
use  contacts  with  the  doctor  as  a  fair  comparison.  An  instance  which 
supports  this  conclusion  is  a  negro  family  consisting  of  father,  mother 
and  eight  children  in  the  Coastal  Plain  county  who  were  just  recover- 
ing from  smallpox  and  who  had  had  no  medical  attention  during  their 
sickness. 

The  average  distance  from  the  home  to  the  doctors'  office  was  5.3 
miles.  The  comparative  distances  for  the  land-owners  and  landless 
were  5.53  and  5.25  miles,  respectively,  and  for  the  whites  and  negroes 
5.27  and  5.82  miles  respectively.  The  expenditure  per  family  for  medi- 
cine, drugs,  patent  remedies,  and  doctor  fees  is  given  in  the  Tables  C 
to  GUI. 


Table  C- 


-Average  Per  Family  Expenditure  for  Doctor  Fees,  Drugs,  and 
Patent  Medicines 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

» 
Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont-. 

$75.00 
28.05 
32.04 

$27.00 
11.03 

$31.09 
15.00 
16.30 

$14.08 
18.45 

$34.14 
28.04 
17.05 

$19.00 
24.00 

$53.06 
28.13 
27.03 

$19.00 
20.00 

Total 

$42.70 

$19.20 

$17.15 

$18.10 

$27.40 

$23.25 

$41.50 

$18.85 

54 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CI — Average  Per  Family  Expenditure  for  Doctor  Fees  and  Drugs 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain._.  

$69.00 
26.00 
30.07 

$22.00 
10.00 

$25.09 
12.20 
13.90 

$13.00 
13.85 

$32.08 
26.00 
13.00 

$13.00 
19.00 

$49.06 
20.07 
25.00 

$15.00 
17.00 

Mountain ._ 

Total 

$39.70 

$16.00 

$14.30 

$13.80 

$24.15 

$18.20 

$37.60 

$15.40 

Table  CII — Average  Per  Family  Expenditure  for  Patent  Medicine 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

$  6.00 
2.05 
2.00 

$  5.00 
1.03 

$  6.00 
2.80 
2.40 

$  1.08 
4.60 

$  2.06 
2.04 
4.05 

$  6.00 
5.00 

$  4.00 
8.06 
2.03 

$  4.00 

Piedmont 

3.00 

Total 

$  2.96 

$  3.18 

$  2.95 

$  4.30 

$  3.29 

$  5.08 

$  4.00 

$  3.76 

Table  CIII — Per  cent  of  Families  Use  Patent  Medicine 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 

Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain...     , 

Piedmont _.   _ 

Mountain __     ___ 

56.2 

77.7 
47.9 

80.0 
66.6 

94.8 
91.3 
48.2 

40.0 
89.5 

53.2 
87.8 
57.8 

92.8 
97.0 

58.7 
100.0 

52.7 

55.3 
97.0 

Total 

60.0 

72.7 

64.2 

83.7 

62.4 

96.3 

61.5 

66.1 

A  summary  of  the  tables  on  expenditures  for  doctor  fees  and  medi- 
cines shows  that  the  landless  families  spend  an  average  of  five  cents 
more  per  year  for  doctor  fees  and  prescriptions  than  land-owner  fami- 
lies do.  When  the  average  expenditure  for  patent  medicines  is  added 
to  the  average  expenditure  for  doctor  fees  and  prescriptions,  the  aver- 
age land-owner  family  spends  sixty-seven  cents  more  for  health  per  year 
than  the  average  landless  family  does. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


55 


A  landed  family  spends  an  average  of  $26.42  for  medical  attention 
per  year  as  compared  to  $25.75  for  a  landless  family;  $29.45  for  white 
family;  $19.98  for  a  negro  family,  and  $26.84  average  for  all  families. 
The  use  of  patent  medicines  was  general,  68  per  cent  of  the  landless 
class  using  them  as  compared  to  64.5  per  cent  of  the  land-owner  fami- 
lies; 62.3  per  cent  of  the  white  families;  76.8  per  cent  of  the  negro 
families,  and  65.6  per  cent  of  all  families.  The  average  family  spends 
$3.44  for  patent  medicines  per  year.  The  comparative  expenditure  is 
$3.02  for  land-owner  families;  $2.30  for  landless  families;  $3.15  for 
white  families,  and  $4.19  for  negro  families.  Tables  CIY  to  CXIII 
give  in  detail  the  medical  attendance  on  the  mothers  during  childbirth 
and  the  number  of  stillbirths  per  family. 


Table  CIV — Attendance  at  Births 
(For  the  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

76.0 

23.7 

.3 

33.3 
66.7 

72.5 
10.2 
6.9 
10.4 

28.6 
71.4 

57.5 

39.5 

3.0 

8.3 
90.5 

48.0 
52.0 

14.6 

Midwife 

85.4 

1.2 

Total 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Table  CY — Attendance  at  Births 
(For  the  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Doctor 

94.0 
6.0 

53.3 

46.7 

95.6 
3.5 

34.2 
63.6 

78.2 
17.0 

41.3 

58.7 

84.2 
15.8 

43.0 
57.0 

0.9 

2.2 

3.8 

Total 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

56 


jSTorth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CVI — Attendance  at  Births 
(For  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

92.0 
5.5 
0.5 
2.0 

85.2 
14.2 
0.24 
0.36 

84.9 

11.2 

1.6 

2.3 

80.0 
16.6 

Unattended 

3.4 

Total 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Table  CVII — Attendance  at  Births 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

White 

Black 

Total 

79.7 

18.7 

0.5 

1.1 

48.1 

50.5 

0.6 

0.8 

80.4 
17.6 
0.8 
1.2 

30.3 
69.4 

64.4 

Midwife 

34.1 

0.5     . 

0.3 

1.0 

Total 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Table  CVIII — Per  cent  of  Births  Attended  oy  White  and  Negro  Hidwives 
(For  the  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White  midwife 

Negro  midwife 

0.9 
22.8 

66.7 

7.9 
2.3 

71.4 

18.0 
21.5 

90.5 

29.6 
22.4 

85.4 

Total. 

23.7 

66.7 

10.2 

71.4 

39.5 

90.5 

52.0 

85.4 

Farm  Economic  axd  Social  Conditions 


57 


Table  CIX — Per  cent  of  Births  Attended  by  White  and  Negro  Midwives 
(For  the  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

3.7 
2.3 

46.7 

1.5 
2.0 

63.6 

18.0 

58.7 

15.8 

57.6 

Total - 

6.0 

46.7 

3.5 

63.6 

18.0 

58.7 

15.8 

57.6 

Table  CX— Per  cent  of  Births  Attended  by  White  and  Negro  Midwives 
(For  the  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

5.2 
0.3 

12.9 
1.3 

11.2 

11.7 
4.9 

Total 

5.51 

14.2 

11.2 

16.6 

Table  CXI — Per  cent  of  Births  Attended  by  White  and  Negro  Midwives 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

White 

Black 

Total 

5.9 
12.8 

9.1 

41.4 

11.0 
6.6 

7.4 

Negro  midwives 

69.4 

26.7 

Total 

18.7 

50.5 

17.6 

69.4 

34.1 

Table  CXII — Average  Stillbirths  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

.25 
.33 
.39 

1.0 
.83 

0.3 
.19 
0.2 

.24 

.558 
0.4 
.23 

.214 
.13 

.258 

.38 

.26 

.678 

.34 

Total 

.33 

.92 

.203 

.21 

.399 

.15 

.275 

0.6 

58 


jNTorth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXIII — Per  cent  of  Families  Had  Stillbirths 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

16.7 
17.2 
21.7 

60.0 
50.0 

20.0 
10.01 
14.8 

10.5 

21.8 
22.5 
16.9 

14.3 
10.6 

20.7 
5.3 
18.4 

36.0 

Piedmont 

Mountain...  .                        .   

11.4 

Total 

18.8 

54.6 

13.8 

9.3 

20.2 

11.3 

20.2 

23.8 

The  landed  families  had  doctors  present  at  79.7  per  cent  of  all  births 
as  compared  to  48.1  per  cent  for  the  landless  families;  80.4  per  cent  for 
the  white  families;  30.3  per  cent  for  the  negro  families;  64.4  per  cent 
for  all  families  surveyed.  Five  births  out  of  every  one  hundred  w7ere 
unattended  except  by  members  of  the  immediate  family.  Midwives 
attended  50.5  per  cent  of  all  births  in  the  landless  families  as  compared 
to  18.7  per  cent  for  the  land-owners'  families;  17.6  for  the  white  fami- 
lies; 69.4  per  cent  for  the  negro  families,  and  34.1  per  cent  for  all 
families  surveyed. 

The  landless  families  had  negro  midwives  present  at  41.4  per  cent 
of  the  births,  as  compared  to  12.8  per  cent  for  the  land-owners;  6.6 
per  cent  for  the  whites;  69.4  per  cent  for  all  negroes,  and  26.7  per  cent 
for  all  families  surveyed.  19.9  per  cent  of  all  landless  families  had 
had  one  or  more  children  born  dead  as  compared  to  16.2  per  cent  for 
the  land-owners,  17.6  per  cent  for  the  whites;  19.2  per  cent  for  the 
negroes,  and  18.1  per  cent  for  all  surveyed.  Tables  CXIV  to  CXV  give 
the  per  cent  of  persons  vaccinated  for  smallpox  and  the  per  cent  inocu- 
lated for  typhoid. 


Table  CXIV — Per  cent  Vaccinated  for  Smallpox 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

48.6 

1.3 

40.3 

79.5 
14.8 

47.2 
11.6 

30.3 
0.9 

51.5 
6.6 

27.5 
3.1 

49.0 
4.28 
11.6 

39.9 

Piedmont 

Mountain.. 

5.1 

Total 

30.8 

55.0 

9.85 

4.71 

23.08 

7.47 

30.8 

30.98 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


59 


Table  CXV — Per  cent  Inoculated  for  Typhoid 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

27.3 
0.4 
93.5 

61.4 
14.8 

39.3 
38.0 

0.9 

36.9 

3.6 

44.7 

1.4 

28.9 

18.4 

25.7 

Total 

45.2 

43.7 

27.15 

.775 

35.9 

.64 

33.7 

13.68 

Tables  CXIV  and  CXV  show  that  18.1  per  cent  of  all  persons  in  the 
land-owner  families  were  vaccinated  for  smallpox  and  30.7  per  cent 
inoculated  for  typhoid  as  compared  to  24.1  per  cent  of  the  landless 
vaccinated  for  smallpox  and  19.3  per  cent  inoculated  for  typhoid.  It 
was  found  that  21.2  per  cent  of  all  persons  surveyed  had  been  vaccinated 
for  smallpox  and  24.7  per  cent  had  been  inoculated  for  typhoid.  Tables 
CXVI  to  CXXV  give  the  possibilities  of  contamination  of  the  water 
supply. 

Table  CXVI — Per  cent  of  Wells  Open  at  Top 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain  .      -.-.._. 
Piedmont,-.  _   _          ...     — 
Mountain...                     .  . . 

65.1 
44.5 
66.6 

20.0 
25.0 

73.7 
58.0 
52.4 

100.0 
59.3 

70.2 
28.6 
100.0 

78.6 
34.2 

77.7 
84.0 
75.0 

86.5 
62.7 

Total 

55.0 

22.2 

59.8 

65.6 

58.05 

46.1 

78.0 

83.5 

Table  CXVII- — Per  cent  of  Wells  10  Feet  and  Less  in  Depth 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

4.2 

5.0 
1.3 
1.2 

1.3 

21.4 

3.5 

8.9 

■ 

Total 

1.83 

3.92 

.89 

5.77 

2.74 

7.8 

60 


Xorth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXVIII — Per  cent  of  Wells  Between  11  and  20  Feet  in  Depth 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

66.8 
1.7 

7.25 

80.0 

65.0 
1.3 
6.7 

80.0 

63.7 

78.6 
zl.5 

72.7 
7.7 
2.6 

85.8 

Total...- 

34.9 

33.3 

24.5 

12.5 

43.7 

23.1 

60.26 

75.7 

Table  CXIX — Per  cent  of  Wells  More  Than  20  Feet  in  Depth 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

25.0 
91.4 
5.75 

40.0 
66.7 

25.0 
75.9 
4.5 

20.0 
71.0 

31.0 

87.5 
4.2 

56.1 

23.8 
76.9 
5.3 

4.3 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

48.5 

63.27 

66.7 

71.58 

87.5 

55.41 

71.13 

37.0 

16.5 

Table  CXX — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Wells  Within  20  Yards  of  Privy 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

4.17 

5.0 

3.9 

5.17 

7.7 

6.24 

Total 

1.14 

.38 

1.6 

3.67 

4.76 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


61 


Table  CXXI— Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Wells  Within  20  Yards  of  Bam 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

10.4 
6.7 

80.0 

15.0 
.126 

40.0 
5.27 

26.0 
7.5 
1.41 

71.5 
6.07 

41.4 
7.7 

17.9 

11.4 

Total 

4.57 

36.4 

1.53 

9.3 

12.75 

17.5 

22.9 

16.3 

Table  CXXII— Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Wells  Within  20  Yards  of  House 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

60.4 
68.9 
8.7 

100.0 
50.0 

80.0 
53.2 
3.08 

80.0 
60.6 

89.6 
52.5 
4.2 

85.8 
41.0 

86.2 
30.8 
5.27 

71.0 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

8.6 

Total 

42.8 

72.7 

24.15 

62.8 

49.5 

48.75 

51.4 

63.3 

Table  CXXIII — Per  cent  of  Homes  Secure  Water  from  Springs 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Piedmont 

Mountain .. 

6.9 
87.0 

50.0 

22.8 
87.1 

23.7 

12.5 
95.8 

42.4 

15.4 
89.5 

51.4 

Total 

36.6 

27.3 

61.0 

20.9 

38.3 

35.0 

33.1 

12.2 

62 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXXIV — Per  cent  of  Homes  Where  Yards  Drain  Toward  Well 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

20.0 
16.7 

5.0 
20.3 
13.6 

20.0 
18.4 

13.0 
15.0 

4.2 

21.4 
37.9 

13.8 
15.4 
13.2 

8.4 

6.9 
11.6 

34.3 

Mountain 

Total 

6.85 

18.2 

14.95 

18.6 

10.1 

35.0 

13.75 

14.3 

Table  CXXV — Per  cent  of  Homes  Where  Privy  Drains  Toward  Water  Supply 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

25.0 

11.4 
4.3 

10.0 
7.9 

15.8 
7.5 

22.7 

9.0 

7.7 

17.0 

il.t 

Total 

9.1 

6.14 

6.97 

4.78 

18.75 

2.75 

4.76 

In  summarizing  Tables  CXVI  to  CXXV  on  the  possibilities  of  con- 
tamination of  the  water  supply,  it  must  be  considered  that  a  large  per- 
centage of  the  homes  have  no  privies  as  will  be  shown  in  a  later  table. 
A  comparatively  large  per  cent  of  the  w^ells  of  the  landless  class  are 
shallow,  open  at  the  top  and  located  within  a  few  steps  of  the  house, 
barn,  and  privy.  Sanitary  conditions  on  the  whole  were  found  to  be 
bad  among  all  the  classes  surveyed  but  they  were  comparatively  worse 
for  landless  than  for  land-owners  and  worse  for  negroes  than  whites. 
The  house  wells  at  4.1  per  cent  of  the  homes  of  the  land-owners  and 
6.5  per  cent  of  the  landless  is  so  located  in  relation  to  the  privy  that 
the  surface  slopes  toward  the  water  supply.  The  yard  and  barn  drain 
toward  the  water  supply  at  12.4  per  cent  of  the  homes  of  land-owners 
and  15.8  per  cent  of  the  landless  homes.  More  than  5  per  cent  of  all 
homes  surveyed  had  privies  located  on  higher  ground  levels  than  that 
of  the  wells,  and  more  than  14  per  cent  had  barns  whicb  drained  toward 
the  water  supply. 

Tables  CXXVT  to  CXXX  give  the  sanitary  practices  used  by  the 
homes  in  the  disposal  of  human  excreta,  garbage  and  dish-water. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


63 


Table  CXXVI — Per  cent  Have  Privies 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

48.0 
38.0 
39.2 

80.0 

45.0 
1.27 
27.2 

40.0 
2.6 

49.3 
20.0 
9.85 

21.4 
4.55 

37.9 
15.4 
7.9 

25.0 

5.7 

Total 

41.1 

36.3 

20.7 

7.0 

28.2 

7.5 

24.8 

20.4 

Table  CXXVII — Per  cent  of  Privies  Ever  Cleaned  Out 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

56.0 

50.0 

66.6 

40.0 

68.4 

66.6 

72.7 

53.6 

Mountain 

70.2 

61.4 

71.7 

33.3 

Total 

44.4 

50.0 

61.2 

58.4 

33.3 

63.0 

50.0 

Table  CXXVIII — Per  cent  of  Privies  Sanitary 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

43.4 

6.9 

52.0 

11.0 

47.3 

31.8 

10.7 

34.2 

28.5 

33.3 

Total.- '. 

38.9 

29.6 

37.8 

29.6. 

10.0 

64 


Xorth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXXIX — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Throw  Dish-Water  in  the  Yard 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

29.2 

8.6 

-36.2 

60.6 

25.0 
2.5 
3.52 

60.0 
5.3 

33.8 
31.0 

42.82 
9.2 

62.1 
15.4 
47.4 

57.2 
11.4 

Total 

25.2 

27.2 

24.5 

11.6 

25.5 

15.0 

51.4 

46.2 

Table  CXXX — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Throw  Garbage  in  the  Yard 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

4.7 
8.6 
4.35 

5.0 
2.5 
4.94 

10.5 

45.5 
7.5 
2.8 

9,2 

10.4 
15.4 
7.9 

15.2 

11.4 

Total 

5.71 

4.2 

9.3 

21.2 

7.5 

10.1 

10.09 

Only  24.5  per  cent  of  the  farms  surveyed  had  privies.  Of  these 
privies  only  30.2  per  cent  were  sanitary  and  only  53  per  cent  had  ever 
heen  cleaned  out. 

The  landed  class  had  privies  at  27.2  per  cent  of  the  homes,  33.1  per 
cent  of  which  privies  were  sanitary  and  50.4  per  cent  had  ever  been 
cleaned  out.  The  landless  had  privies  at  22.1  per  cent  of  the  homes, 
only  26.7  per  cent  of  which  were  sanitary  and  56  per  cent  had  ever  been 
cleaned  out. 

Dish-water  was  thrown  in  the  yard  at  29.6  per  cent  of  all  the  homes 
surveyed  and  garbage  was  thrown  in  the  yard  at  11.1  per  cent  of  all 
the  homes  surveyed.  The  landless  dump  dish-water  in  the  yard  at 
35.1  per  cent  of  the  homes  as  compared  to  23.7  per  cent  for  the  landed. 
The  landless  dump  garbage  in  the  yard  at  14.9  per  cent  of  the  homes 
surveyed  as  compared  to  5.1  per  cent  for  the  land-owners. 


EDUCATION 


In  the  analysis  of  education  the  following  facts  were  investigated : 
illiteracy,  schooling  of  the  parents,  schooling  of  children  and  the  amount 
of  reading  matter  in  the  homes.  Tables  CXXXI  to  CXXXVI  give 
the  facts  about  illiteracy  and  schooling  of  the  different  classes  of  people. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


65 


Table  CXXXI — Per  cent  of  Parents  Who  Can  Read  and  Write 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

81.8 
88.9 
96.5 

80.0 
72.9 

80.0 
98.0 
95.0 

90.0 
69.8 

86.5 

94.95 

89.0 

35.8 
63.0 

70.8 
88.5 
79.7 

42.3 

50.0 

Total 

89.7 

76.2 

94.8 

72.2 

89.5 

51.9 

76.0 

45.2 

Table  CXXXII — Per  cent  of  Parents  Who  Have  Attended  School 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

83.0 
98.0 
95.85 

80.0 
72.9 

71.5 
100.0 

94.8 

80.0 
71.1 

84.5 
92.1 
89.0 

42.8 
63.0 

70.8 
88.5 
79.7 

42.3 

53.0 

Total 

92.8 

76.2 

95.2 

72.2 

88.2 

59.5 

76.0 

46.05 

Table  CXXXIII — Per  cent  of  Fathers  Who  Can  Read  and  Write 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

81.7 
90.0 
96.8 

60.0 
80.0 

62.5 
100.0 
93.3 

100.0 
70.5 

77.5 
89.8 
86.8 

28.5 
48.5 

58.0 
84.5 
78.4 

36.7 

Piedmont _   _ 

39.4 

Total 

90.7 

70.0 

93.5 

74.4 

88.2 

45.0 

68.6 

37.3 

66 


jNTorth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXXXIV — Per  cent  of  Fathers  Who  Have  Attended  School 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

81.7 
100.0 
96.8 

60.0 
80.0 

50.0 
100.0 
92.5 

80.0 
73.6 

74.0 
89.8 
86.8 

35.7 
48.5 

58.0 
84.5 
75.8 

37.7 

45.5 

Total 

93.8 

70.0 

92.3 

74.4 

83.1 

41.3 

67.5 

39.6 

Table  CXXXV — Per  cent  of  Children,  Ages  Six  to  Fifteen,  Who  Can 

Read  and  Write 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain... 

82.1 
91.5 
74.3 

55.0 
37.5 

50.0 
84.5 
36.5 

72.8 
55.2 

75.1 
52.0 
60.6 

60.0 
70.2 

61.7 
54.6 
60.8 

45.0 
25.95 

Total _ 

81.4 

50.0 

50.0 

57.8 

63.9 

68.1 

60.0 

40.0 

Table  CXXXVI — Average  Gh'ade  in  School  oy  Father 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

3.75 

6.4 

8.25 

2.2 
1.8 

2.19 

4.8 

4.38 

4.2 

2.76 

3.36 

4.87 
3.96 

.78 
1.72 

2.7 

2.84 

3.7 

.81 

1.48 

Total 

6.4 

2.0 

4.33 

2.95 

3.97 

1.55 

3.07 

.985 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


67 


Table  CXXXVII- 


-Classes  of  Operators  Ranked  According  to  School 
Education 


White  operator  landlords . 

White  owner  operators 

White  tenants 

White  croppers 

Negro  owner  operators,.. 
Negro  operator  landlords 

Negro  tenants 

Negro  croppers 


6.40 
4.33 
3.97 
3.07 
2.95 
2.00 
1.55 
.985 


A  summary  of  the  Tables  CXXXI  to  OXXXVII  shows  that  9.4  per 
cent  of  the  land-owner  parents  cannot  read  and  write  as  compared  to 
31.3  per  cent  of  the  landless;  10.7  per  cent  of  the  whites;  46.1  per  cent 
of  the  negroes,  and  20.8  per  cent  for  all  surveyed.  Of  the  landless 
parents,  31.3  per  cent  have  never  attended  school  as  compared  to  8.2 
per  cent  of  the  owner  parents;  10.5  per  cent  of  the  white  parents;  35.3 
per  cent  of  the  negro  parents,  and  20.3  per  cent  of  all  surveyed. 

It  was  found  that  fathers  in  the  owner  families  had  on  the  average 
attained  4.9  grades  in  school  as  compared  to  2.55  grades  for  the  fathers 
of  the  landless  families;  4.55  grades  for  the  white  fathers;  1.49  for  the 
negro  fathers,  and  3.69  for  the  fathers  of  all  families  surveyed. 

The  land-owners'  children,  from  the  ages  of  six  to  fifteen  years  in- 
clusive, could  read  and  write  in  60.5  per  cent  of  the  cases  as  compared 
to  57.2  per  cent  for  the  children  of  the  landless;  61.8  per  cent  of  the 
children  of  the  whites;  52.9  per  cent  for  the  children  of  the  negroes, 
and  58.5  per  cent  for  the  children  of  all  surveyed. 

A  thorough  analysis  was  made  of  the  amount  of  current  reading  mat- 
ter which  comes  into  the  homes.  Tables  CXXXVIII  to  CXLIX  pre- 
sent these  data  in  detail. 


Table  CXXXVIII — Per  cent  of  Families  Which  Take  Different  Kinds  of 

Papers  and  Magazines 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

White 

Black 

All  Surveyed 

Per  cent  families  take  dailies. 

Per  cent  take  weeklies 

Per  cent  take  church  papers.. 

Per  cent  take  farm  papers 

Per  cent  take  children's  papers 
Per  cent  take  magazines 

3.50 
31.8 
18.6 
35.7 

2.5 
26.3 
28.4 

6.7 
9.0 
2.3 
18.5 
0.6 
12.2 
65.1 

26.8 
24.3 
13.5 
29.8 
1.8 
25.2 
37.6 

3.2 

8.9 
1.4 

18.9 
0.7 
2.8 

72.2 

20.3 
20.0 
10.2 
2*6.8 
1.5 
19.0 
47.5 

68 


Xorth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXXXIX — Per  cent  of  Families  Which  Take  No  Papers  or  Magazines 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

16.6 
13.8 
24.6 

40.0 
33.3 

35.0 
17.8 
37.7 

40.0 

47.4 

54.6 
37.5 
57.9 

92.6 
66.7 

50.0 
53.8 
73.8 

82.1 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

85.8 

Total 

18.85 

36.4 

31.4 

46.5 

52.2 

71.25 

58.7 

83.0 

Table  CXL — Total  Papers  and  Magazines  Taken 
(For  the  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Number  surveyed 

Number  dailies  taken 

Number  weeklies  taken 

48 
29 
15 
6 
24 

5 
1 

1 

20 
5 
4 

5 
4 

77 

11 
8 
1 

15 
3 

22 

14 
1 

58 
5 
5 

2 

22 

112 
3 
5 
1 

Number  farm  papers  taken 

1 

5 

3 
1 
1 

9 

Number  magazines  taken 

27 

5 

10 

3 

Table  CXLI — Total  Papers  and  Magazines  Taken 
(For  the  Piedmont  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

58 
22 
56 
38 
47 
1 
46 

6 
3 
2 

79 
20 
62 
39 
44 
4 
30 

38 

7 
2 
14 
1 

2 

40 
5 

12 

7 

22 

66 
1 
6 
1 

19 

13 
1 
3 
1 
3 

35 

1 

Number  weeklies  taken 

Number  church  papers  taken 

Number  farm  papers  taken 

Numbe*  children's  papers  taken.. 
Number  magazines  taken 

4 

14 

3 

1 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


G9 


Table  CXLII — Total  Papers  and  Magazines  Taken 
(For  the  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

69 
41 
15 
18 
30 
3 
37 

162 
58 
33 
15 
49 
4 
65 

71 
6 
8 

38 
2 

1 

Number  farm  papers  taken 

11 

3 

1 
10 

Number  magazines  taken 

25 

Table  CXLIII — Total  Papers  and  Magazines  Taken 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Landowners 

Landless 

Whites 

Negroes 

All  Surveyed 

490 
176 
200 
118 
219 
14 
213 

524 
35 
49 
13 

108 
4 
88 

733 
205 
222 
127 
275 
16 
292 

281 
6 

27 
4 

52 
2 
9 

1014 

Number  daily  papers 

Number  weekly  papers 

Number  church  papers 

Number  farm  papers 

Number  children's  papers 

211 
249 
131 
327 
18 
301 

Table  CXLIV — Per  cent  of  Families  That  Take  Daily  Newspapers 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

54.2 
32.3 
55.0 

20.0 

20.0 
25.3 
35.8 

7.9 

14.3 
12.5 

8.5 

1.5 

8.6 
7.7 
5.25 

2.7 

2.85 

Mountain 

Total 

48.6 

9.1 

31.5 

6.95 

11.7 

1.25 

7.34 

2.7 

70 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CXLY — Per  cent  of  Families  That  Take  Weekly  Newspapers 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

31.3 
65.6 
21.7 

20.0 
0.5 

20.0 
52.0 
17.9 

60.0 
18.4 

10.4 
30.0 
11.3 

7.15 
7.5 

8.6 
15.4 
2.63 

4.5 

Total 

38.8 

36.4 

28.3 

23.3 

14.9 

7.5 

7.34 

3.4 

Table  CXLVI — Per  cent  of  Families  That  Take  Church  Papers 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

10.4 
43.2 
21.7 

1.3 
15.0 

1.5 

3.45 

7.7 

.89 

Piedmont 

39.3 
8.0 

5.3 

Total.. 

26.7 

16.8 

4.66 

3.73 

1.25 

2.75 

.68 

Table  CXLYII — Per  cent  of  Families  That  Take  Farm  Papers 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

46.0 
39.6 
36.3 

20.0 
.33 

25.0 
44.3 
26.5 

60.0 
42.2 

19.5 
40.0 
14.0 

28.8 

32.7 
23.0 

7.9 

7.1 

11.4 

Mountain 

Total 

40.0 

27.3 

31.8 

44.2 

21.8 

23.7 

22.9 

8.17 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


71 


Table  CXLVIII — Per  cent  of  Families  That  Take  a  Children's  Paper 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

20.0 
2.6 

2.6 

1.7 

43.5 

2.5 
2.5 

2.63 

Total 

2.3 

2.39 

4.66 

1.6 

.918 

Table  CXLIX — Per  cent  of  Families  That  Take  a  Magazine 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

27.1 
32.8 
36.3 

20.0 
22.8 
29.0 

20.0 
5.3 

15.6 
22.5 
24.0 

3.0 

20.6 

7.7 

21.0 

2.7 

Total 

32.6 

26.5 

6.95 

20.2 

2.50 

19.3 

2.04 

Tables  CXXXVHI  to  CXLIX  show  that  over  five  times  as  large  a 
per  cent  of  the  land-owners  as  of  the  landless  take  daily  papers  and 
over  three  times  as  large  a  per  cent  take  weekly  papers.  Church  papers 
are  eight  times  as  prevalent  in  the  land-owners'  homes  as  they  are  in 
the  homes  of  the  landless,  and  farm  papers  about  twice  as  prevalent  in 
the  homes  of  the  land-owners  as  they  are  in  the  homes  of  the  landless. 
Children's  papers  are  about  four  times  as  prevalent  in  the  homes  of  the 
land-owners  as  they  are  in  the  homes  of  the  landless.  The  owners  take 
magazines  in  over  twice  as  high  a  percentage  of  cases  as  the  landless 
families  do. 

Almost  two-thirds  of  the  landless  and  almost  three-fourths  of  the 
negroes  take  no  magazines  at  all. 

Of  all  the  families  surveyed,  20.3  per  cent  take  daily  papers,  20  per 
cent  take  weekly  papers;  10.2  per  cent  take  church  papers;  26.8  per 
cent  take  farm  papers;  1.5  per  cent  take  children's  papers;  19  per  cent 
take  magazines,  and  47.5  per  cent  take  none  of  any  kind. 

An  analysis  was  made  of  the  number  and  kind  of  books  in  the  homes. 
Tables  CL  to  CLIV  give  the  data  in  detail. 


72 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CL — Average  Number  of  Books  Per  Home 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

15.2 
65.0 
16.3 

0.8 
15.8 

1.4 
23.8 

7.64 

20.2 
18.3 

2.69 
17.7 
3.56 

1.5 
11.75 

2.24 
6.07 
5.35 

0.6 

4.8 

Total 

26.4 

9.0 

14.1 

18.6 

6.2 

9.9 

4.24 

1.6 

Table  CLI — Per  cent  of  Families  Who  Borrow  Books 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

25.0 

8.6 

20.3 

5.0 
6.3 

27.8 

20.0 

15.6 

6.9 

12.7 

7.9 

Total 

17.7 

19.8 

2.33 

11.2 

6.2 

Table  CLII — Per  cent  of  Homes  That  Have  Bibles 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

89.5 
100.0 
100.0 

80.0 
100.0 

95.0 
98.6 
100.0 

100.0 

97.2 

74.0 
100.0 
100.0 

78.5 
78.8 

86.5 
92.2 
97.2 

62.0 

97.1 

Total..- -. -. 

97.3 

90.9 

99.5 

97.7 

89.4 

78.8 

90.8 

69.3 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


73 


Table  CLIII — Per  cent  of  Homes  That  Have  No  Other  Books  Than  Bibles 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

45.8 

5.2 

21.7 

80.0 

55.0 

5.1 

27.2 

100.0 
10.5 

57.3 

5.0 

51.2 

78.5 
15.1 

58.6 
38.5 
52.9 

82.1 

28.5 

Total 

22.8 

27.3 

22.6 

16.3 

43.6 

22.8 

54.2 

70.1 

Table  CLIV — Kind  of  Books  in  Homes 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Land  Owners 

Landless 

White 

Black 

All 

14.0 
1.3 

19.4 
22.1 
43.2 

6.5 

2.9 

16.7 

32.8 

41.1 

13.3 
1.9 
19.8 
20.7 
44.3 

7.4 

0.4 

8.4 

49.2 

34.6 

12.4 

1.6 

Per  cent  fiction 

18.8 
24.4 

42.8 

The  landless  had  Bibles  in  82.3  per  cent  of  the  homes  as  compared 
to  98.2  for  the  owners;  95  per  cent  for  all  whites;  77.4  for  all  negroes, 
and  90.1  for  all  surveyed.  One-half  of  the  landless  homes  have  no 
other  books  than  "Bibles  as  compared  to  22.2  per  cent  for  the  land- 
owners; 32. S  per  cent  for  all  whites;  47.1  for  all  negroes,  and  37.6  per 
cent  for  all  surveyed. 

A  summary  of  Tables  CL  to  CLIY  shows  that  an  average  owner  has 
over  four  times  as  many  books  as  a  tenant  and  that  the  white  families 
have  over  twice  as  many  books  as  the  negro  families  have.  The  prac- 
tice of  borrowing  books  is  three  times  as  prevalent  among  the  land- 
owners as  it  is  among  the  landless,  and  borrowing  of  books  is  forty 
times  as  prevalent  among  the  whites  as  among  the  negroes.  More  than 
nine-tenths  of  all  borrowed  books  were  from  school  libraries. 


74 


jN"orth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


RELIGION 

Religious  affairs  of  the  communities  were  investigated  by  finding  the 
relations  of  the  parents  and  children  to  the  church  and  Sunday  school. 
Tables  CLV  to  CLX  present  the  data  in  detail. 

Table  CLV — Per  cent  of  Parents  Who  Are  Church  Members 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont _.   - 

36.4 
96.4 
85.8 

30.0 
100.0 

28.6 
98.0 
89.0 

30.0 
98.6 

78.5 
92.7 
79.3 

21.4 
86.5 

36.3 
53.9 
76.7 

35.4 
83.3 

Total 

75.5 

66.7 

87.5 

90.0 

80.0 

75.0 

52.7 

48.3 

Table  CLYI — Per  cent  of  Parents  Who  Go  to  Sunday  School 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

15.9 
90.7 
92.2 

70.5 

100.0 
81.8 

14.3 

94.8 
76.1 

89.8 

25.8 
89.8 
66.2 

3.6 

69.8 

16.8 
38.4 
63.7 

12.3 

Piedmont 

Mountain _     - 

65.05 

Total 

52.5 

77.9 

78.6 

55.8 

58.05 

35.8 

25.8 

Table  CLYII — Per  cent  of  Parents  Who  Go  to  Church 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

93.2 
100.0 

99.2 

100.0 
100.0 

91.2 
99.5 
96.4 

90.0 
94.3 

98.3 
100.0 

95.0 

78.6 
98.3 

80.5 
69.2 
87.8 

94.0 

Piedmont -   -_ 

94.0 

Total 

97.7 

100.0 

97.0 

93.7 

94.5 

96.1 

82.0 

96.2 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


Table  CLVIII — Per  cent  of  Children,  Ages  Six  Through  Fifteen,  Who  Are 

Church  Members 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

8.95 
46.95 

21.4 

8.74 

8.3 
54.9 
13.4 

3.3 

21.5 

6.7 

1.9 

34.4 

8.3 
4.4 

16.3 

Total 

22.5 

25.0 

22.9 

29.5 

3.71 

17.9 

3.1 

5.7 

Table  CLIX — Per  cent  of  Children,  Ages  Six  Through  Fifteen,  Who  Attend 

Sunday  School 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

24.3 
93.8 
72.0 

5.0 
75.0 

16.6 
84.8 
67.5 

68.8 

21.0 
54.0 
55.2 

13.35 

59.7 

30.0 
13.6 
58.5 

15.2 

Piedmont,-,     -         .  .     .. 

Mountain. __       ._ 

51.8 

Total 

58.3 

25.0 

68.8 

59.0 

43.6 

50.7 

37.5 

24.5 

Table  CLX — Per  cent  of  Children,  Ages  Six  Through  Fifteen,  Who 

Attend  Church 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

75.3 
96.0 
84.0 

20.0 
87.4 

70.9 
87.6 
38.2 

36.4 
90.0 

43.2 

60.4 
69.5 

60.0 
94.4 

61.7 
54.6 
76.1 

63.2 

Piedmont...  

Mountain 

87.0 

Total 

83.3 

39.2 

53.2 

82.0 

58.9 

87.5 

65.7 

69.2 

76  North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 

From  Tables  CLV  to  CLX,  and  additional  information  not  included 
in  these  tables,  the  following  general  facts  are  apparent :  That  83  per 
cent  of  the  land-owner  parents,  64.8  per  cent  of  the  landless  parents, 
79.1  per  cent  of  the  white  parents,  63  per  cent  of  the  negro  parents, 
and  74.5  per  cent  of  all  parents  are  church  members.  The  differences 
between  these  various  classes  are  slight,  but  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
landless  and  negro  group  are  lowest  in  church  membership. 

In  Sunday  school  attendance  the  differences  between  the  groups  are 
about  the  same. 

In  church  attendance  there  is  very  little  difference  between  the  dif- 
ferent classes,  the  landless  and  the  negro  group  following  only  slightly 
below  the  others. 

Church  membership  of  the  children  is  twice  as  prevalent  among  those 
of  the  land-owners  as  among  those  of  the  landless,  but  only  slightly 
more  prevalent  among  the  children  of  the  white  than  among  the  chil- 
dren of  the  negroes. 

In  Sunday  school  attendance  the  landless  are  again  deficient,  only 
38.5  per  cent  of  the  children  of  the  landless  parents  attending  as 
compared  to  62  per  cent  for  the  children  of  land-owners.  The  negro 
children  fall  considerably  below  the  white  in  the  phase  of  religious 
activity. 

The  only  exception  to  the  superior  showing  of  the  land-owners  and 
whites  over  the  landless  and  negroes  is  for  church-going  among  the 
children.  The  outstanding  fact  in  this  field  is  the  pronounced  church- 
going  habit  of  the  negro  children,  which  is  probably  accounted  for  by 
their  desire  for  association  with  other  children.  Church  membership  is 
more  prevalent  than  going  to  Sunday  school  or  going  to  church  in 
practically  all  cases. 

RECREATION 

Two  types  of  recreation  were  investigated.  One  of  these  was  the 
amount  of  participation  in  community  recreation  and  the  other  was 
the  amount  and  kind  of  musical  instruments  in  the  homes. 

The  recognized  forms  of  community  recreation  were  taken  to  be 
picnics,  fairs,  sociables,  movies,  holiday  celebrations,  chautauquas,  lec- 
tures, theatres,  dances,  and  other  similar  forms  of  amusement  and  rec- 
reation. 

An  analysis  was  made,  to  determine  the  average  number  of  times  an 
individual  attended  one  of  these  forms  of  recreation  the  preceding  year. 
In  addition,  an  analysis  was  made  of  the  per  cent  of  families  who  had 
one  or  more  members  who  attended  one  or  more  of  these  forms  of  recre- 
ation. The  following  tables,  CLXI  through  CLXVI,  give  this  analysis 
in  detail. 


Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


77 


Table  CLXI — Average  Times  Each  Person  Participated  in  a  Form  of  Com- 
munity Recreation  the  Preceding  Year 
(For  the  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

3.04 
3.62 
3.34 

.79 
1.52 

1.73 
3.02 
3.04 

1.97 
1.77 

1.40 
1.76 
1.73 

.25 
2.21 

.92 
1.63 
1.66 

.88 
1.92 

Mountain __   _ 

Total - 

3.3 

1.07 

3.8 

1.8 

1.6 

1.86 

1.25 

.99 

Table  CLXII — Amount  of  Participation  in  Various  Forms  of  Community 

Recreation  by  the  Different  Classes 

(For  the  Coastal  Plain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

16.66 

16.66 

14.6 

12.5 

37.5 

60.0 
20.0 

5.0 
10.0 
40.0 
20.0 
15.0 

80.0 

21.8 
16.8 
19.5 
7.8 
7.8 

7.15 

21.45 

7.15 

7.15 

22.4 

24.1 

8.6 

8.6 

1.7 

17.9 

17.9 

16.0 

12.5 

Per  cent  attend  more  than  4  kinds. 

2.7 

Table   CLXIII — Amount   of  Participation  in    Various  Forms   of   Community 

Recreation  by  the  Different  Classes 

(For  the  Piedmont  County) 


s 

Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

8.6 

5.2 

16.2 

13.8 

31.1 

33.3 

33.3 

3.8 

8.9 

29.1 

39.2 

10.1 

7.9 
15.8 
50.0 
15.8 

7.9 

20.0 
12.5 
30.0 
17.5 

17.5 

3.01 
24.3 
33.2 
24.3 

7.6 

7.7 
15.4 
38.5 
15.4 

22.9 

Per  cent  attend  3  kinds.  ._  

42.8 
11.4 

Per  cent  attend  more  than  4  kinds. 

14.3 

78 


North  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table   CLXIV — Amount   of   Participation  in   Various  Forms   of   Community 

Recreation  oy  the  Different  Classes 

(For  the  Mountain  County) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

5.8 
13.0 
10.2 
13.0 
49.3 

9.2 
11.7 

19.2 
20.4 
28.4 

5.6 
22.5 
22.5 

5.6 
15.5 

23.8 
7.9 

18.4 
7.9 

10.5 

Per  cent  attend  more  than  4  kinds. 

Table  CLXV — Amount  of  Participation  in  Various  Forms  of  Community 

Recreation  oy  the  Different  Classes 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Land 
Owners 

Landless 

Whites 

Negroes 

All 

8.0 
12.0 
22.6 
20.0 
26.6 
10.8 

14.1 
19.1 
22.1 
11.8 
8.0 
24.9 

11.9 
13.8 
19.8 
16.1 
21.4 
17.0 

9.2 
20.7 
28.8 
14.9 

5.7 
20.7 

11.2 

15.7 

22.3 

15.7 

Per  cent  attend  more  than  4  kinds _     . - 

Per  cent  attend  none --   -   -       _.       .  ..   _   _ 

17.1 
18.0 

Table  CLXVI — Per  Cent  of  Families  Which  Participate  in  No  Form  of  Com- 
munity Recreation 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

2.08 
24.1 
8.7 

20.0 
33.3 

10.0 
8.8 
11.1 

20.0 
2.6 

27.3 

2.5 

28.3 

57.1 
7.6 

34.4 
23.0 
31.5 

33.0 

Piedmont 

Mountain _ 

8.6 

Total 

12.0 

27.3 

10.3 

4.66 

22.3 

16.3 

32.1 

27.2 

Fakm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


79 


From  Tables  CLXI  to  CLXYI  it  is  apparent  that  the  members  of 
the  families  of  the  landless  farmers  participate  in  community  recre- 
ational events  to  just  about  one-half  the  extent  that  the  members  of  the 
families  of  the  land-owners'  families  do,  and  that  the  negroes  partici- 
pate just  about  half  as  often  as  the  whites. 

The  landless  families  had  representatives  who  had  attended  more  than 
four  kinds  of  community  recreation  the  previous  year  in  8  per  cent  of 
the  cases  as  compared  to  26.6  for  the  landed  families,  21.4  for  the 
whites;  5.7  for  the  negroes,  and  17.1  for  all  surveyed. 

ISTo  member  of  18  per  cent  of  all  the  families  surveyed  had  partici- 
pated in  or  attended  any  community  recreational  event  during  the  pre- 
ceding year.  The  deficiency  was  greatest  among  the  landless,  next 
among  the  negroes,  next  among  the  whites,  and  least  among  the  land- 
owners. 

An  analysis  of  the  amount  and  kind  of  musical  instruments  in  the 
homes  is  given  in  Tables  CLXVII  to  CLXXIII. 


Table  CLXVII — Per  cent  of  the  Homes  With  One  Musical  Instrument 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain.. 

51.0 
50.0 
15.0 

40.0 
66.0 

50.0 
40.0 
22.0 

60.0 
39.0 

42.0 
28.0 
21.0 

43.0 
9.0 

50.0 
8.0 
10.0 

29.0 
30.0 

Total 

37.2 

45.6 

29.2 

34.9 

31.4 

15.0 

31.2 

19.3 

Table  CLXVIII — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  Two  or  More  Musical 

Instruments 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

24.0 
16.0 
17.0 

14.0 
15.0 

15.0 

4.0 

0.9 

33.0 

2.5 
8.0 

11.0 

4.0 

Total 

18.8 

18.2 

5.75 

6.97 

5.85 

12.26 

2.75 

.68 

80 


North   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CLXIX — Per  cent  of  Homes  Which  Have  Victrolas* 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

35.0 
13.0 
21.0 

40.0 
33.0 

30.0 
6.0 
7.0 

40.0 
5.0 

40.0 
10.0 
7.0 

21.0 
12.0 

36.0 
10.0 

13.0 

Piedmont i 

Mountain __     .  ...  _ 

6.0 

Total 

22.8 

36.4 

8.45 

9.3 

21.2 

12.7 

22.9 

11.6 

This  includes  all  talking  machines. 


Table  CLXX — Per  cent  of  Homes  Which  Have  Organs 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

16.0 
39.0 
23.0 

20.0 
33.0 

15.0 
53.0 
17.0 

5.0 

9.0 
10.0 
7.0 

21.0 
12.0 

10.0 
7.0 

15.0 

Piedmont 

6.0 

Total 

26.8 

45.6 

20.3 

30.3 

6.53 

16.2 

6.42 

14.3 

Table  CLXXI — Per  cent  of  Homes  Which  Have  Pianos 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

37.0 

20.0 

5.0 

20.0 

6.0 

10.0 

0.9 

7.0 
5.5 

Total 

19.4 

3.99 

2.32 

2.66 

5.51 

.68 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


81 


Table  CLXXII — Musical  Instruments  in  Homes 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Land 
Owners 

Landless 

Whites 

Blacks 

32.9 

28.22 

31.85 

26.7 

10.8 

4.77 

8.46 

5.7 

56.3 

67.0 

49.7 

67.6 

14.28 

17.78 

17.58 

12.69 

24.1 

10.9 

16.68 

18.5 

9.57 

2.29 

7.78 

0.71 

Total 


Per  cent  have  1  instrument.- . 
Per  cent  have  2  instruments,. 
Per  cent  have  no  instruments 

Per  cent  have  victrolas 

Per  cent  have  organs 

Per  cent  have  pianos 


32.1 
7.68 
61.8 
16.08 
17.2 
5.82 


Table  CLXXIII — Per  cent  of  Homes  With  No  Musical  Instruments 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

25.0 
34.5 
65.3 

16.6 

55.0 
57.0 
70.4 

60.5 

44.2 
72.5 
77.5 

75.8 

46.6 
92.2 
86.9 

Piedmont _ 

Mountain  ._ 

71.5 

Total 

44.0 

36.4 

65.3 

55.9 

62.8 

72.7 

66.0 

70.1 

Tables  CLXYII  to  CLXXIII  show  that  a  considerably  larger  per 
cent  of  the  landless  families  have  no  musical  instruments  than  is  the 
case  with  land-owning  families,  and  that  the  negroes  and  whites  are 
about  equal  in  this  respect. 

The  owner  families  have  two  musical  instruments  in  over  twice  as 
great  ratios  as  the  landless  families. 

The  landless  have  more  victrolas,  or  other  types  of  talking  machines, 
per  family  than  the  land-owners  have,  but  the  owner  families  have  four 
times  as  many  pianos  as  the  landless  have.  Less  than  23  per  cent  of 
all  families  surveyed  have  pianos  or  organs. 


CITIZENSHIP   AND    SOCIAL   CONTACTS 

In  investigating  the  social  and  economic  conditions  of  these  various 
groups  of  farmers  a  careful  study  was  made  of  change  of  residence  to 
find  if  they  indicated  anything  regarding  the  stability  of  the  communi- 
ties. Tables  CLXXIV  to  CLXXYI  present  the  information  on  changes 
of  residence. 


82 


JNTorth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CLXXIV — Average  Changes  of  Residence  Per  Family 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

2.83 
2.44 
2.16 

3.2 

5.0 

2.05 
2.92 
2.64 

2.2 

4.47 

4.28 
3.92 
4.38 

5.29 
4.82 

4.88 
5.23 
4.73 

5.03 

Piedmont  .                   -  - - 

Mountain -     -- 

5.43 

Total 

2.44 

4.18 

2.68 

4.2 

4.25 

4.9 

4.88 

5.13 

Table  CLXXV — Per  cent  of  Changes  of  Residence  Which  Meant  Changes  of 

Community 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

8.83 
24.0 
15.4 

18.7 

12.2 
20.8 
11.2 

18.2 
11.2 

14.55 

21.0 
11.25 

2.30 
16.7 

39.6 
23.6 
16.65 

37.6 

14.7 

Total 

16.15 

6.5 

14.45 

11.6 

14.5 

17.85 

29.7 

31.8 

Table  CLXXVI — Average  Changes  of  Residence  Per  Family  Which  Meant  a 

Change  from  One  Community  to  Another 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

.25 

.586 

.33 

.60 

.25 
.61 
.296 

.40 
.50 

.62 

.825 

.493 

1.2 
.803 

1.93 

1.06 

.78 

1.89 

Piedmont .     ..._..:        

.80 

Total... 

.394 

.273 

.388 

.488 

.617 

.875 

1.45 

1.63 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


83 


A  summary  of  the  preceding  tables  on  changes  of  residence  shows 
that  a  land-owner  had  moved  only  half  as  often  as  the  landless  farmers, 
and  that  the  white  farmers  had  moved  about  three  times  to  the  negro 
farmers  four  times.  The  change  of  residence  involved  a  complete 
change  of  community  in  31.1  per  cent  of  the  cases  for  the  landless 
families,  and  in  35.2  per  cent  for  the  negro  families. 

A  change  of  community  was  here  interpreted  to  mean  a  move  so  that 
the  children  must  attend  a  different  school  and  the  family  was  within 
the  radius  of  a  different  church. 

An  analysis  was  made  of  the  number  of  automobiles  and  buggies  pos- 
sessed by  the  different  classes  of  farmers  because  it  was  believed  that 
these  facts  would  give  an  index  to  the  amount  of  communication  and 
social  contacts  available  to  the  persons  owning  them.  Tables  CLXXVII 
to  CLXXIX  give  the  information  on  these  items  in  detail  and  are  self- 
explanatory. 

Table  CLXXVII — Per  cent  Have  Automobiles 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

92.9 

37.95 

20.3 

60.0 

45.0 
32.9 
11.73 

60.0 
7.9 

49.4 
5.0 
2.82 

14.3 
3.03 

34.5 

16.96 

Piedmont ..   _ 

Mountain...  .. .  .     _____ 

Total 

40.6 

27.25 

20.7 

13.95 

22.33 

5.0 

18.35 

12.92 

Table  CLXXVIII — Per  cent  Have  Buggies 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain _     

60.4 
68.0 
17.4 

80.0 
83.4 

55.0 
71.0 
14.8 

80.0 
73.7 

72.8 
70.0 
12.67 

71.5 
68.2 

34.45 

42.8 

Mountain.    

Total 

46.3 

81.8 

34.1 

74.5 

22.35 

68.75 

25.7 

32.6 

84 


JSToeth   Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Table  CLXXIX — Per  cent  of  Families  Which  Have  No  Automobiles,  Buggies, 

or  Road  Vehicles  for  Family  Conveyance 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

4.17 
19.0 
6.52 

40.0 
16.7 

10.0 

16.45 

71.0 

20.0 
21.07 

22.1 
27.6 
84.5 

28.6 
33.3 

31.04 
100.0 
100.0 

54.5 

Piedmont..  

Mountain...       ...          . 

100.0 

Total 

33.15 

27.3 

49.8 

20.92 

46.8 

32.5 

63.3 

65.3 

When  this  survey  was  planned  it  was  thought  that  an  investigation 
of  the  amount  of  exchange  of  work  would  give  an  index  to  the  neighbor- 
hood spirit  and  cooperation  of  the  various  classes  of  farmers.  It  was 
found,  however,  that  it  was  customary  on  the  larger  estates  for  all  the 
tenants  to  work  together  on  such  work  as  tobacco  curing  and  other  jobs 
requiring  groups  of  persons. 


Table  CLXXX — Per  cent  of  Families  Which  Exchange  Work 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

41.6 
31.1 
33.4 

80.0 
16.66 

40.0 
44.3 
53.8 

60.0 
39.5 

70.1 
52.4 
59.1 

78.5 
39.4 

81.0 
30.8 
58.0 

76.0 

Piedmont . 

Mountain.        _                      . 

42.8 

Total 

34.9 

45.5 

49.8 

41.8 

62.3 

46.2 

67.0 

68.0 

Table  CLXXXI — Average  Days  Exchange  of  Work  Per  Family  the  Past  Year 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

13.0 

2.64 
2.58 

23.0 
1.0 

9.85 

3.1 

5.07 

8.0 
3.4 

20.0 
5.0 
6.97 

17.0 
1.88 

22.2 
3.5 
6.4 

24.4 

5.7 

Mountain...     . 

Total 

5.5 

11.2 

4.84 

3.95 

11.85 

4.55 

14.2 

19.8 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions 


85 


An  investigation  was  made  to  find  the  number  of  the  parents  who 
were  members  of  some  form  of  community  organization  other  than  the 
church.  It  was  found  that  15.4  per  cent  of  the  land-owner  parents 
were  members  of  some  one  of  these  organizations  as  compared  to  9.75 
per  cent  for  the  landless;  12.7  per  cent  of  the  whites;  11.9  per  cent  for 
the  negroes,  and  12.45  per  cent  for  all  surveyed.  The  following  table 
presents  these  figures  in  greater  detail : 

Table  CLXXXII — Per  cent  of  Parents  Members  of  Some  Community 

Organization* 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

14.8 
16.7 
17.5 

10.0 
18.2 

8.6 
18.2 
12.8 

20.3 

12.08 
8.9 
11.8 

17.9 
9.8 

7.97 

3.8 

2.7 

11.3 

7.6 

Total 

16.5 

14.3 

14.35 

17.75 

11.2 

11.25 

5.63 

10.4 

"Community  organization  was  used  to  mean  some  organization  other  than  the  church. 

Each  operator  was  asked  how  often  his  family  paid  a  visit  to  some 
neighbor.  It  was  found  that  a  landless  family  goes  visiting  86  times 
per  year  as  compared  to  65  for  a  landed  family,  66  for  a  white  family, 
101  for  a  negro  family,  and  76  for  all  families  surveyed.  Table 
CLXXXIII  presents  these  figures  in  detail. 


Table  CLXXXIII — Average  Visits  Per  Family  Per  Year 
(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

49 
153 
43 

42 
149 

67 
62 
45 

67 
280 

49 
107 
41 

74 
146 

41 
112 
38 

53 

130 

Total 

75 

91 

53 

92 

70 

87 

78 

112 

86 


Xokth  Carolina  Tenancy  Commission 


Each  farmer  was  asked  what  he  thought  of  consolidated  schools,  road 
bonds,  higher  education,  scientific  farming,  strict  enforcement  of  the 
laws  and  cooperative  buying  and  selling.  Each  answer  was  checked  as 
favorable,  opposed  to,  or  indifferent.  The  three  following  tables  give 
this  analysis  in  detail : 

Table  CLXXXIV — Per  cent  of  Answers  Favorable  to  Consolidated  Schools, 
Road  Bonds,  Higher  Education,  Scientific  Farming,  Law  and  Order,  and 
Cooperation 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

Coastal  Plain 

Piedmont 

59.4 
79.2 
64.7 

36.7 
16.6 

46.7 
84.5 
53.0 

73.5 
18.9 

45.3 
77.5 
38.9 

14.3 
21.4 

41.1 
47.5 
43.8 

17.4 
8.6 

Total 

64.1 

25.8 

62.2 

23.2 

49.7 

20.2 

42.8 

15.3 

Table  CLXXXV — Per  cent  of  Answers  Opposed  to  Consolidated  Schools,  Road 
Bonds,  Higher  Education,  Scientific  Farming,  Law  and  Order,  and  Co- 
operation 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 
Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

27.1 

9.2 

24.4 

20.0 

31.7 

5.9 

20.8 

16.5 
0.9 

37.2 

6.3 

23.9 

14.3 
2.8 

25.9 

7.7 
25.8 

44.3 

Piedmont . 

1.4 

Total 

20.0 

15.17 

17.1 

2.5 

25.6 

4.7 

23.7 

34.1 

Table  CLXXXvT — Per  cent  of  Answers  Indicating  an  Indifference  to  Consoli- 
dated Schools,  Road  Bonds,  Higher  Education,  Scientific  Farming,  Law 
and  Order,  and  Cooperation 

(For  area  surveyed) 


Operator 
Landlords 

Owner 

Operators 

Tenants 

Croppers 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

White 

Black 

13.5 
11.6 
20.9 

43.3 

83.4 

21.6 

9.6 

26.2 

10.0 
80.2 

17.5 
16.2 
37.2 

71.4 
75.8 

33.0 
44.9 
30.4 

38.3 

Piedmont - 

90.0 

Total... 

15.8 

65.1 

20.75 

69.5 

24.6 

75.0 

33.6 

50.5 

Farm  Economic  and  Social  Conditions  87 

A  summary  of  Tables  CLXXXIV  to  CLXXXVI  on  the  six  questions 
regarding  public  and  community  improvement  shows  that  58.8  per  cent 
of  the  answers  from  land-owners  were  favorable,  16.8  per  cent  opposed, 
and  24.4  per  cent  indifferent.  The  answers  from  the  landless  were 
favorable  in  34.1  per  cent  of  the  cases,  opposed  in  24.4  per  cent,  and 
indifferent  in  41.5  per  cent.  The  whites  were  favorable  in  56.5  per 
cent  as  compared  to  18.7  per  cent  for  the  negroes  and  46  per  cent  for 
surveyed.  The  whites  were  indifferent  in  22.5  per  cent  of  the  cases 
compared  with  20  per  cent  for  the  negroes  and  20.7  per  cent  for  all 
surveyed.  The  whites  were  indifferent  in  22.5  per  cent  of  the  cases 
compared  with  61.3  per  cent  for  the  negroes  and  33.3  per  cent  for  all 
surveyed.  From  these  facts  it  would  appear  that  the  land-owning 
farmers  are  more -interested  and  quite  likely  more  active  in  promoting 
community  and  civic  improvement  than  are  the  landless  .farmers,  and 
that  the  interest  of  the  whites  is  three  times  as  evident  and  favorable 
to  improvement  as  is  the  case  with  the  negroes. 


